From: Amilcar Kabral (amilcarkabral@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Dec 21 2003 - 20:39:00 GMT
When RMP writes "independently manipulable signs" i think he's referring to
the fact that we have pictures, signs and words in our heads that only
'stand for' what we see/hear/feel in the external world. That these are
'independently manipulable' doesn't refer to them as being completely
detatched from the world, but more simply that our thoughts don't directly
act upon the world (contrary to our beliefs about prayer and positive
thinking). When we 'manipulate' these signs in everday thinking -such as
planning to move, watching the weather forecast and imagining being in that
kind of weather, etc.- more than not they do follow the laws of physics,
biology and social custom (unless we fantasize or write bad sci-fi). We may
of course follow these internal directions, such as envisioning seducing a
mate or planning a business venture, or we may not.
With the notion of 'rules of their own' (a.k.a. arbitrary signs) methinks
RMP also refers to the fact that we can speak truth in English, Thai and
Hindi. Though these languages (like math and musical scores) have rules of
their own, they do have differing systems of categorizing language which
dictate their grammatical structure, but not necessarily their semantic
content, which is a different categorical structure altogether -what they
mean to the producer, reader or listener and whether or not they refer to
reality. Each of these languages (i assume) have analogs of nouns, verbs,
prepositional phrases, etc. while the rules of combining and ordering these
differ just as there are many ways to phrase the same thought in any one of
these languages. And you can speak the same truth in each of these languages
(though differently nuanced).
Sam, i think your three examples of 'logic' are a little misleading. What i
found obviously missing (smirk) from your description was any notion of
semantics and/or categories. You contrasted grammatical structure and
'quality' without the natural counterpart of grammar, semantics. The
'wrongness' that we discern in the latter two examples, varying from
'quality'/truth, stems from us knowing that though these sentences do have
correct grammatical structure, they lack correct semantic content. They are
'wrong' or 'lack quality' because they conflict with and contradict the
categorical distinctions of English (and social relaity in general). I don't
think that this example indicts the coherence of intellect at the fourth
level. That's because the intellect to me isn't the mind but the body of an
immaterial consciousness. IMO what should be addressed is where
consciousness and will fit into this hierarchy.
To put it bluntly, i think the issues of abstract signs and independently
manipulable lay in that these signs are analogous to genes, dna, etc but not
in the function of how they sit in the intellectual level. Rather they are
analogous in that they correspond to these thoughts and when we think about
them in our heads, our thoughts generally follow the rules of what they
refer to, as close as we know. I'm referring more to Piaget finding out when
peekaboo doesn't work and that when we think of our mother we see a
picture/movie of her facial expressions that very closely resembles what she
looks like. That's a different dimension of what Sam thinks our thoughts are
analogous to.
That leaves the question of what is the analog of protons for the quantum,
atoms for the physical, dna for the biological for both the mind and
society.
The other issue i have with some of the posts is the explicit and implicit
equation of emotions with intellect. Both emotions and
intellect/intelligences are primarily features of individuals. Though
individuals may be programmed to think and feel in certain ways, neither of
these neurologically-based activities can be located in the abstract thing
called 'society'. But this tiff i have with those distinctions comes from
the fact that i think that the MOQ hierarchy should read 'quantum, physical,
biological, individual,THEN social' simply because you can't have any of the
latter without the former. DNA without atoms, or biology without carbon,
entities without DNA? Those seem to me just as foolish as the thought of
society without individuals, or thought without brains (or thinker). But
then again, society doesn't 'choose' its members nor vice versa, which is
another issue altogether.
Just as biological molecules (carbon-based) act differently from regular
physical molecules; and melanin and chlorophyll are the only biological
molecules with a metal atom; and why DNA is the preferred replicating
language for viruses, amoeba, sperm whales and humans; so reads the general
mystery of what specifically detects, selects and designates the patterns of
the lower levels as having 'quality'. And i propose that we lightly tread
around the concept of consciousness/will to discern what selects which
lower-level patterns of intellect have 'qualty'.
So in saying that, Sam, i agree that the intellect doesn't adequately
explain what acts as the 'choosing unit' for the intellect. Nor, however,
does 'individual' solve the problem as you portrayed in your grid.
Scientists have yet to explain what pattern of energy/matter moves the world
to existence from non-existence. Hydrogen is the significant sub-atomic
particle (one proton at its simplest) that moves us from quantum to atomic
reality. Carbon is the molecule that separates the inorganic from the
organic. DNA is the molecule that moves us from bio-chemical reactions to
sustainable and replicable organisms. However we don't have a tangible
entity to ascribe our 'decision-making unit' or 'consciousness unit' to. Of
course the corpus callosum and pineal gland were respective contenders for
these organs, but fell to the wayside as these organs simply work as gate
keepers and govenors (cybernetics connotation) that transmit information
rather than as entities that outright select and create information (but
they serve as insightful analogs to these functions). Just as we don't know
the big "WHY" of the proton, carbon, DNA or any specific gland/organ as
responsible for such a discontinuous shift between levels, simply saying the
'whole organism' (i.e. individual) won't solve the problem either.
It seems that your indictment of Pirisig's MoQ levels - that he doesn't
explain what does that skilled manipulation or choosing - also indicts your
own system of missing the critical power of explanation. However you do make
a critical step in qualifying and quantifying that specific individuals are
doing these skilled manipulations and making these choices.
Amilcar
ps: after re-reading this post i must ask you to please excuse my arrogance!
But then again, that's how it came out up . . . shrug
Dance 'til your knees hurt
Giggle 'til you're gone
Love with abandon
Do
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 22 2003 - 02:49:56 GMT