Re: MD novel/computer heirarchy

From: johnny moral (
Date: Wed Aug 06 2003 - 06:29:56 BST

  • Next message: Jonathan B. Marder: "RE: MD Lila's Child"

    Hi Platt,

    Good zingers, but I never said dog and chimp and goose and ant social
    patterns were anywhere near the complexity and development of human social
    patterns. But they have high quality social patterns, higher quality than
    humans, using my yet-to-be-accepted "high quality=high expectation" formula.
      However these individual biological organisms interact with each other,
    that forms the patterns of the social level. And animals have a very stong
    expectaton of how to interact with each other, so much so that people call
    them "hard-wired", attributing all their social behavior to their genes.
    But so what, so what if social patterns are "in the genes"? The genes of
    one are the genes of the many, and the social and biological patterns
    developed together. They weren't sequenced by God into squirrels and cats
    circa 4000 BC and dropped into Eden with no time to develop how to behave.
    Their biology as squirrels is dependent on their social patterns as
    squirrels, to a certain extent.

    The animal kingdom has roles and packs and alpha dogs, and I think they have
    wives, brothers, friends and enemies too. But even without that stuff,
    animals have patterns of behavior toward others of their kind. Maybe they
    moo, or maybe they butt heads, or maybe they groom each other. That's their
    social level. If they think about how their social level could be more like
    another herd's social patterns, then they have hit the intellectual level.

    Intellectual level is the patterns of behavior bettwen societies (real and
    imagined), and biological level is patterns of behavior between inorganic
    units (though I still haven't formulated what those inorganic units are so
    that they are not forming still more inorganic patterns, like H2, which I
    think is a inorganic, not biolgical pattern, and surely not social.)


    >From: "Platt Holden" <>
    >Subject: Re: MD novel/computer heirarchy
    >Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 17:04:48 -0400
    >Hi Johnny,
    > > So I don't think I will concede this point. Pirsig made an arbitrary
    > > and expedient distinction that obfuscates understanding of what social
    > > patterns are. By "subjectively" choosing what is in the social level,
    > > he is applying intellectual and social values to the level after the
    > > fact.
    >When ants, bees and wolves have schools, churches, courts, policemen,
    >presidents, kings, congresses, elections, political parties,
    >fraternities, sororities, newspapers, magazines, movies, TV, sports,
    >celebrities, internets and moq.discuss groups, let me know. Hardly
    >'arbitrary' or 'expedient' distinctions from the animal kingdom. The
    >proper MOQ social level value pattern for your animal friends is a zoo.
    >The only obfuscated understanding of social patterns is your own. :-)
    >Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of
    >despotism. - Mary McCarthy
    >MOQ.ORG -
    >Mail Archives:
    >Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    >Nov '02 Onward -
    >MD Queries -
    >To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 06:30:41 BST