LS Re: Four levels of being

Magnus Berg (
Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:42:48 +0100

Hi Donny and Squad

You wrote:
> I think there is a lot of bending and twisting of pirsig's ideas
> going unrecognized around here. My favorite definitions of the 4 levels
> is where he goes:
> The laws of nature (physics)
> The law of the jungle
> The law (as in: judiciary law)
> The rules of logic and scientific method
> Let's see if we can remind ourselves of that. Do you think that
> 'the law' (judiciary law) is involved in the development of the clorophyll
> molecule!?

Don't be so single minded. It's not that particular instance of a social
pattern that is involved in the chlorophyl molecule, it's another instance
of social patterns. It's a META-physics, remember?

> If you strech these 4 types of patterns so far then they become
> very much less usefull, lower quality, and (when you strech it as far as
> Magnus where a rock is made of all the patterns) they become pretty close
> to meaningless.

Actually, it was Troy who described the four levels of the rock. I
wouldn't describe the levels of the rock quite like he did but I would
definitely say that the levels are there, or could be anyway.

And don't think for one moment that I have no cause for stretching
the levels as far as I've done. Yours and many other's definition of
the levels are based on a life chauvinistic split between the first
and the second level. It's dependent on the "fact" that everyone can
recognize life when they see it. What kind of a metaphysical
definition is that? To be frank, I'd put it close to ridiculous.

What are you gonna do the day computers get so smart that you have
no choice but to call them intelligent, will they become biological
that same day also? Will they be alive?

If you don't stretch the levels as I've done, they become life
chauvinistic, short sighted and emotivistic. If you do stretch the
levels, they become metaphysically useful.

> And I think it's important to see how each level begins, as has
> been said, in the servace of it's predecesor, but then it gains it's
> freedom and, in my lingo, becomes a life of its own.

So you do think that the inorganic level is alive too?

> the laws of physics/chemistry
> the law of the jungle (Darwinian stuff)
> the law, judiciary law, man's/sociaty's law
> the rules of logic, reason, the scientific method
> (BTW, you can substitute "evaloative process" for "law" and
> you've got perfect MoQ-speak.)
> Who doesn't buy that?

Who do you think? :)

Well, today and on this planet that's a perfectly functional division.
It demands fuzziness but nobody but me seems to mind. But apply it to
any other place or any other time and it will probably become utterly
meaningless. On the other hand, I guess that doesn't bother you either.


"I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good"
				N. Peart - Rush

homepage -
unsubscribe/queries -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:38 CEST