Hi Miv
> We argue weather an ant hill is a social structure or not, but according to
> some prevailing theories of evolution (notably Lynn Margulis's) every
> multicellular organism is a symbiotic colony of ancient seperate cellular
> organisms. More then that, the cells themselves are communities of bacteria
> which have adapted to living together as single organisms.
> Some of us may dismiss this example and say: "but this pattern clearly
> belongs to the biological realm..." Well does it?
Pirsig, and the MoQ, says it does. In the last pages of chapter 11:
On the other hand, the shift in cell reproduction from mitosis to meiosis
to permit sexual choice and allow huge DNA diversification is a Dynamic advance.
So is the collective organization of cells into metazoan societies called plants
and animals.
> "The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and
> economy of explanation." (LILA Corgi ed. p. 121)
>
> Does Prsigs hirarchic division of the four realms of quality of the MOQ i.e.
> : Organic, biologic, social and intellecual REALLY meet with these tests?
Not if they are organized strictly hierarchical. But they aren't. All levels
are dependent on the levels below, and that isn't a hierarchical division,
it's more like a dimensional division. First level patterns are one-dimensional,
second level patterns are two-dimensional etc. This means that a Giant is
three-dimensional, *at least*! It can also be four-dimensional, like a human
being.
> I think one of the great achievements of Pirsig is the clarity of his
> description of the four seperate realms. One of the weaknesses of his
> theory, is the hirarchic order of these realms, and the implication that
> they arise one out of the other. If we lend Lynn Margulis's theory any
> weight (and there are significant reasons to do so which we need not get
> into here, but it satisfies every test of truth according to Pirsig), then
> we must ask ourselves how and if the complexity of society differ from the
> complexity of an ecological system? of symbiossis? Why must we insist that
> they are different? Is it logically consistent?
I don't think they are different. And as far as I can tell, the MoQ says exactly
what Lynn Margulis says. That egological systems, symbiosis (and Giants) are just
different names for social patterns of value.
> I think the boundaries are not clear.
> According to Pirsigs tests of truth, I would say the complete seperation of
> MOQ's realms does not have logical conssistency, and it does not meet with
> experience.
A dimensional view of the levels doesn't really need boundaries, and since the
realms aren't completely separate, the inconsistencies you mention vanishes. In
short, it seems the MoQ has a lot in common with this Lynn's theories about
evolution. Where can I read more?
Magnus
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:21 BST