>C'mon guys'n'gals! What's holding you back? I don't want a bunch of
>fuzzy phrases from chapter X or a pack of slips as the definition of the
>intellectual level. I want a straight forward, cut to the chase and kick ass
>definition! We have barely a month to go. If we don't get started, we'll
>never get something out of it.
I intended to make a long & nasty reply to Magnus's challange, but Mark
butler in his excellent posting had beat me to it....
Basically I think the problem with the definition of the levels is their
sequential order. The notion that one level is "higer" then the other
dosen't convince me. So, Here is my suggestion:
1. The intellectuall level is the source of the social level (Which in turn
is the Source of the biological level, Which is at the source of the
2. Each level of quality is independantly evolving. As it evolves it affects
the other levels evolution.
3. At a certain point in it's evolution, it becomes so powerfull and complex
that it seems independant of the other levels - (which it never truely is) -
these moments are named "eras" by RMPs intellect.
4. All the levels of quality were there to begin with. They didn't arise out
of one another (Which is an SOM notion in my view) but rather, they
manifested through each other.
5. Assuming this is so, can we hypothesise now what is the 5th level? is it
already manifesting itself through the intellectual level? Is it directing
it towards some unknown goal and culmination of intellectual activity which
will give birth to the 5th level / dimention?
Can we tell the direction evolution is heading?
Perhaps it has something to do with technology. So much intellectual energy
is devoted to it's creation (which could not have manifested through any
other level) that I'm prone to suspect evolution has got something up it's
sleeve for us there...
Back to Magnus:
>I follow a path in the woods and spot a branch lying about. I grab the
>branch and use it later to make a fire.
>No intellectual pattern here, I just use the inorganic value of the branch.
no intellectual pattern here? You SPOTTED the branch. You UNDERSTOOD that
the branch can be used to make fire. You MADE it into a tool to alter the
environment. I think thats plenty a manifestation of the intellectuall
level. Blooms taxonomy has it all (thanks Mark).
>The hieroglyphs of old Egypt was also just carvings on stone before they
>knew what they meant.... ... since they lacked the language, the
>hieroglyphs was reduced to inorganic value...
<<Intellectual static patterns of value are small pieces of dynamic quality
turned by intelligence to a coded and shareable form >>.
Bravo. but not quite there yet...
The Hieroglyphs themselves cannot be considered as intellectuall value. They
are simply an inorganic mainfestation of the intellectual pattern. Yet even
if no one could read them, they would still be a manifestation of a
language, a socio/intellectuall pattern.
>The primary function of the intellectual level is as the maker, warehouser,
>and promoter of patterns.
Much better. Patterns include such activities as making music, embroidery
and hunting as well as spoken and written language... hmm, a larger scope.
3WD - to further clarify your definition:
How does the intellectuall level promote those patterns in a way different
from the patterns promoted by the social level?
I think the story with Sea Biscuit (Great story, thanks) reflects more then
intellectuall activity. I think there is a direct manifestation of DQ in it.
The capacity to FIND is not, strictly speaking, intellectuall.
Am I contradicting myself?
Whats the difference between your red cloth and Magnus's branch? Basically
none. Intellect was involved in both, but also something else. DQ.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:24 BST