From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Nov 26 2002 - 21:44:43 GMT
Dear Sam,
This post is a reply to your 9/11 9:48 -0000 post in this thread. I won't
extensively quote your post, to limit the size of this posting. I sent this
reply before (23/11 23:18 +0100) in a somewhat longer version, that
apparently didn't get through to the list, because it exceeded
an -apparently lowered- size limit (something you and others seem to suffer
from, too). I've asked Horse off-list for an explanation, but didn't get a
reply yet.
This thread was about re-naming the 4th level. A name should fit in with our
shared understanding. To the extent that we wish to treat the MoQ as a
metaphysical system, 'a collection of the most general statements of a
hierarchical structure of thought', the best name refers to a definition of
that which it names, a definition we agree on. In the absence of a
definition we agree on, any name that gives us the impression that we are
more or less talking about the same thing is alright and ... any
name-changing will create doubts with some participants if it still fits
with the shared understanding form their point of view and ... will induce
non-constructive discussion fuelled by these doubts.
Your proposal to name the 4th level 'eudaimonic level' refers to a
definition of that level as characterized by a scale of values that all
refer to some form of 'human flourishing'.
Pirsig's name 'intellectual level' presumably referred to a dictionary
definition of 'intellect' (he never states which one as far as I know),
which somehow covered all 4th level patterns of values. His definition of
'the intellectual level' from 'Lila's Child' as 'the collection and
manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that stand for patterns of
experience' would have a better reference with 'symbolic level'.
I think Matt K. came close to this by renaming 'intellectual patterns' into
'linguistic patterns' in his 14/11 14:12 -0600 posting (close if we suppose
modern language containing 'concepts' and not primitive language that only
communicates 'emotions').
For me the best name would be 'motivation level', because a central concept
in my definition of the 4th level is 'motive'. In my understanding 4th level
patterns of values are created and maintained by the social (!) pressure
upon individuals to motivate their behavior as purposeful in a socially (!)
accepted way. Ideas are reproduced (and thus become patterns) when they
prove to be acceptable to others.
The main difference between your and my understanding of the MoQ seems to be
that in your understanding it is a metaphysical system characterized by a
hierarchy of (patterns of) values whereas in my understanding it is a
metaphysical system characterized by a hierarchy of patterns (of values).
Your understanding of the MoQ raises a suspicion in me that you are really
talking about 'values' understood as 'subjective reflections of objects'
alternated with 'the objectivated results of the valuing activity of
subjects'. In other words: your understanding of the MoQ may be
Subject-Object Metaphysics in disguise.
In my understanding of the MoQ the term 'value' is not essential except at
the very basis ontological level where Pirsig stated 'a thing that has no
valve does not exist. The thing has not created the value. The value has
created the thing.' ('Lila' ch. 7) and where he distinguishes static and
dynamic quality/value.
A very essential part of 'Lila' for my understanding is the part in chapter
9 where Pirsig describes a baby gradually 'acquiring' patterns. The quote
can be found in my posting in the '(Wim is it.) Focus forum - round four'
thread. (I had first included it in this posting, but that apparently made
it too long.)
Inside the realm of static value I prefer to concentrate on patterned
experience, types of patterns, the ways patterns are maintained,
hierarchical
ordering of patterns etc.. I attach 'of values' only to serve as a reminder
that patterns don't exist without (are created by) the value of their
stability/continuity (they would be unrecognizable without that) and the
value of their versatility/'migration from/towards ??' (they would be
unbreakable laws instead of mere 'patterns' without that).
I have the impression that in your understanding of the MoQ the term
'pattern' is not essential except to indicate complexity.
So when you are writing about 'the composite patterns which form the "self"
have no outside replication or reproduction', you seem to be writing about
completely different patterns from the patterns I am writing about.
For me the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th level patterns relevant to my 'self' are
patterns are primarily patterns that I am part of, in the maintenance of
which I have a role (and not patterns that are part of me). And yes, when we
experience some patterns in combination (e.g. like writing 'i' instead of
'I', ending affirmative sentences with '?' and criticism of a lot of
characteristics of the U.S.A.), we recognize a specific 'person' (i.e. the
person that used to post here as 'Squonk'). But essentially each of these
patterns are not restricted to this person.
For me distinguishing '3rd level' from '4th level' 'selves' is meaningless.
My 'self' is recognizable only as a combination of (participating in)
patterns from different levels.
And yes, if we leave out DQ (and the versatile/migrating aspect of patterns)
the MoQ becomes a fully determinist philosophy in my understanding.
My understanding of the nature of intellectual patterns of values may even
be broader than yours, because I include some patterns from before the 5th
century BC.
Whether it is broader than Pirsig's I don't really know and I don't care
very much either.
I agree 'that "intellectual" doesn't really capture the essence of the
fourth level' if taken too narrow. I'm not so sure if the intellectual level
is too narrowly defined with 'mind ... the collection and manipulation of
symbols, created in the brain, that stand for patterns of experience'. I
might want to omit 'created in the brain' as non-essential and suggesting a
mind-matter dichotomy, but is it not possible to catch observing,
reasoning, empathy and revelation with this definition? I think these are
the
only faculties we need to develop stories, purposeful activity and systems
of ideas and I can't think of anything else than 'collecting and
manipulating symbols' what we are doing 'in our mind' when observing,
reasoning, empathizing and getting revelations. Observation and getting
revelations would be mostly on the 'collecting' side and reasoning and
empathizing mostly on the 'manipulating' side. When 'getting revelations'
and 'empathizing' most of the process (but not the results) would be
unconscious, whereas when 'observing' and 'reasoning' we are fully conscious
of the 'collecting and manipulating' process.
You asked me:
'How would you describe what these things have in common (i.e. what would be
an accurate and scalable concept to describe them?): the carbon (or
hydrogen?) atom, DNA, a member of the species homo sapiens, a mature
individual? ... I am trying to pick out in each case the equivalent of the
"machine language" interface, i.e. something which is perceptible to each of
two levels, and which therefore is the vehicle for evolutionary development
at the higher level.'
For me the 'machine language interfaces' of the different levels are:
1) elementary particles
2) DNA
3) copied/learned habits
4) copied/learned motives
I don't seen a need for any other scalable concept to describe them than
'pattern of values'.
I think the social level started (for us) not with homo sapiens, but before,
when hominids started to distinguish themselves from apes. 'Humanity' was
created by copying/learning habits and thus creating culture, i.e. habits
that are passed on between generations. I don't exclude (like you) the
possibility that other species than homo sapiens create culture. I doubt if
such cultures are lasting enough to make a comparison with human cultures
very fruitful.
I think the intellectual level started when the first shaman created a
ritual to visualize a need to 'uphold' cosmic order as a motive to act in a
specific way. Repetition of rituals formed and stored stories and systems of
ideas and created the possibility for individuals (first only shamans and
their apprentices) to judge/choose between alternative sets of habits and to
'mature'.
You also asked:
'So you reject the "great man" theory of history? ... In what ways would
you distinguish "history" from "collective memory"?'
'History' for me IS no separate reality structured by turning points that
are defined by 'historic' choices/discoveries/inventions by 'great men', BUT
this 'separate reality with as turning points historic
choices/discoveries/inventions' is one of the possible 'stories', a high
quality (Meaningful) one. 'His story' often needs to be complemented by 'her
story' to become more Meaningful to me...
'Collective memory' is not more than a pattern of 'stories' that are passed
on, a pattern that is re-inforced by other stories that 'fit' the pattern
(ignoring or even suppressing the stories that would weaken it). For me
there is no hard distinction between 'history' and 'collective memory' or
'individual memory'.
Archeological investigation of for instance potential remains of Troy
enables us to fill in details that have been lost from 'collective memory'
and 'history' in passing it on. It always has large elements of conjecture
in it. There's no essential difference between describing 'past reality' or
'present reality'. We, the subjects, and 'history' or 'objective reality'
are created by value. The MoQ draws attention to the patterns of values
rather than to the deduced subjects and objects. Migrating patterns of
values change 'history' and 'objective reality' alike. If our emphasis in
current political reality changes from individual choices to patterns of
determination by circumstantial necessities, biological weaknesses, social
interests and indebtedness to intellectual examples, historical 'great men'
(i.e. Churchill) will also be repainted. Did he make a difference? He was an
element in patterns of values. To the extent that these were stable and
continued he didn't, to the extent that these were versatile and migrated he
did. Both the stability/continuity and the versatility/migration are
essential parts of a good story...
Hope you didn't forget to change a nappy before you put your 'eudaimonic
level' campaign to bed! (-;
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 26 2002 - 21:45:55 GMT