Glenn and Group
> Pirsig states in Lila, near the beginning of chapter 8, "the tests of
> truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy
> of explanation. The Metaphysics of Quality satisfies these". He's
> really trying to describe the attributes of a good theory. He forgot
> one: a good theory should make accurate predictions. Einstein's Theory
> of General Relativity earned instant respect and made Einstein an
> instant celebrity when it accurately predicted the perturbations in
> Mercury's orbit and the degree to which star light was bent by the sun
> as observed during a total eclipse, the latter a measurement no one
> had even *thought* to do before.
This is correct, but to formulate the experiment that will prove or
disprove something the size of a metaphysics is not easy. It can only
predict metaphysical "events" and as its level system only exist within
itself its fifth level prediction will not be bought by anyone outside of the
MOQ initiated.
> One great prediction that MOQ should make is the next evolutionary
> level, but Pirsig doesn't really take a serious stab at it. He may
> well have if he hadn't chosen the highest level as the Intellectual
> level, because, as I outlined in my first post last month, there is a
> beautiful containment relationship running through the lower levels,
> which Pirsig himself points out:
>
> cells are composed of atoms.
> animals are composed of cells.
> societies are composed of animals.
>
> But he (conveniently) doesn't point out the contradiction:
> intellects are composed of societies??
Embarrassing. Cells and animals are of the same (organic) level, and the
"composed of" term is misleading as it leads to the social and social only
with the result that many have got stuck in the "giant" idea. Each level is
a movement "out of" the lower and thus seen there is no problem with
the Q sequence - not even with intellect.
But imagine Pirsig's situation. Having conceived an idea that, if
understood, would change everything, but not having the faintest
notion if one single person would understand it, travelling about in the
sailboat for (6) years, crossing the Atlantic twice, plugging away at the
work that would be his only chance of explaining it. Agonizing over the
manuscript in the hope that one formulation would - when published -
bring one reader to understanding. Ending up with "convenient"
formulations as the one in question that did not convey the MOQ the
best, but possibly would catch the attention. We must look on it in this
retrospect and not zoom in on each and every awkward formulation.
> But this isn't the only reason why the intellectual level sticks out
> like a sore thumb. There seems to be general agreement in this forum
> that the intellect grew up alongside society, that intellect sprang
> from the birth of language, and that language is the crucial tool or
> motive force for DQ within society. Last month Denis said the
> intellect was a "chore-boy" for the social level for a long, long,
> time, and I agree. Pirsig argues that intellect finally broke free
> from society's shackles and became a level in its own right (although
> the exact day this happened is up for debate:) ) However, none of the
> other levels had this chore-boy relationship.
Intellect has been a sore thumb, but I think it is healing by using the SO -
intellect medicine. I am part of the general agreement that intellect and
human society grew up together, but once any level is "coming of age"
the contours of the next is there at once, in that sense intellect and
society can be seen as growing up alongside. Language was society's
"carbon atom" intellect's stepping stone, but not IT
> Another important relationship is this idea that a lower level is
> oblivious to any level above it (as Bodvar reminds us). This holds
> true among the lower levels but not between society and the intellect.
> Society is completely aware of the intellect (this is different from
> saying social thinkers completely understand intellectuals.) The
> politicians, the keepers of society's power, no damn well the
> intellectual scientists want to build a cyclotron the size of Texas to
> better understand pure science, but society still holds the purse
> strings and arguments had better be made that this cyclotron
> contraption will benefit our culture, like give us a new weapons
> technology or a new power generation technology, or else you can kiss
> your cyclotron goodbye.
Social value in any "pure form" is hard to see among humans - not
because it isn't there, but because of our notorious intellectual fixation. It
lurks under the surface - fortunately - and is the next safe latch that we
have and once our "cause" is threatened we drop all intellectual
objectivity and join the ranks and become drones of our hive.. Of course
there are thinkers who have worked out systems about why individuals
should serve society the best, but this is intellect; social value is
something much more archaic.
> Biology was never the chore-boy of inorganic matter. Inorganic matter
> didn't need a chore-boy. It had gone along just fine on its own for
> billions of years, well before biology hit the scene. And when Biology
> did hit the scene, inorganic matter was oblivious to it. Immediately.
This is a well-founded criticism and a point that I wish Pirsig had gone
deeper into. However here's my go at it. As evolution (as Dynamic
Quality) stood at the inorganic level it tried to extend that level's
possibilities to its extreme by making some long strings of matter out of
the most pliable atom - carbon - called amino acids (I am no expert so
forgive any blunders) How this weird-looking lumps of matter made it to
the point of self-copying and all that I don't know; this wasn't life, it was
merely inorganic means of keeping these fragile configurations together
(note that the blue-green algae is almost the age of the earth) It and the
later "stromatolites" and "carbonate evaporites" were still advanced
matter, but they displayed some metabolism and we know how it all
developed. I don't know if this will convince you, but i believe this is the
way to understand the "chore-boy" aspect. Each level is locked into its
stricture if not for the dynamism that exploits one fringe to the point
where it takes on a purpose of its own.
> Similarly, Society was never the chore-boy of Biology. Biology didn't
> need a chore-boy. It had gone along just fine on its own for millions
> of years, well before Society hit the scene. And when Society did hit
> the scene, Biology was oblivious to it. Immediately. Now what about
> philosophers and artists? Except for the most celebrated few from
> these ranks that society can hold up as "poster children" of "high
> culture", the rest are "starving" or marginalized in university jobs.
> The plain facts say something otherwise....
This is the way to see society's chore-boy relationship with biology too.
The simple bacterial life forms could have gone on for ever, they limited
themselves to bouts of consumption and extinctions (not the "great"
extinctions though), so when insect colonies or fish schools started to
form it wasn't societies in any sense, merely life's means of protecting
itself which allowed more complex forms and more "advanced" societies
to manifest. In this sense you see the foundation of the Q-social value to
run in parallel with Q-biology as a chore-boy, but also here we know
what happened as the primates and human biology created a society that
took on a purpose of its own.
> The intellect is still society's chore-boy. Society is still King
> Giant.
As above no level has completely quitted its chore-boy job. Intellect
will forever serve society, yet try its best to act independent
About the "oblivious to the levels above point" that you say doesn't
apply to the society-intellect relationship. It is of course the notorious
mistake that humans display a higher form of biological or social value
than the rest of existence. We live in societies deeply influenced by
intellect, but when focused at lower value planes we are just as
"primitive" as primitively goes. If one's family is attacked one
momentarily becomes focused on the social value level and becomes a
defender of the group, oblivious of any OBJECTIVE facts about the
attacker' being poor or intoxicated or... Likewise, when focused on
biology in lust or pain or hunger lust or..., when not only intellect is left
but society as well. This "oblivion" don't last but when under its spell it
is total.
> While social thinkers and intellectuals are clearly different beasts,
> I don't think the difference is great enough to merit a new level,
> compared to the vast organizational gulfs that exist between the other
> three. (In my opinion, in some ways, the Intellectual level is a step
> backward, but I'm not going to get into that here.)
It follows from my considerations above that I think your social value is
something different from - at least - my social value.
> So if we consider an MOQ, call it MOQ3, that just contains the
> first 3 levels, we can more clearly guess what the next level
> should be. Taking the containment relationship one step further we
> see that it will be a composed of societies (cultures) that behaves
> as one organism, and there will be some prime motive force of
> Dynamic Quality propelling it, in the same way that language carries
> the DQ for the social level. What might the prime motive force of
> the next level be? The Internet? Ha! And would this new organism be
> useful? You bet, since it would most certainly have some aspect
> about it that increases the organism's chances of survival, even at
> the loss of some of the underlying societies.
Likewise
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:36 BST