Re: FW: LS Re: SOM's Intelligence and Quantum 's


Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Tue, 9 Sep 1997 17:25:16 +0100


Magnus Berg wrote:
>
> >
> >----------
> >From: Bodvar Skutvik
> >Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 1997 10:01:54 AM
> >To: Magnus Berg
> >Subject: Re: LS Re: SOM's Intelligence and Quantum 's
> >Auto forwarded by a Rule
> >
>
> Re.no 3. Here I had a hard time, but the Rosetta stone finally hit me
> over
> the head. Ah, you mean (my) definition of Intellectual value as
> "individual
> freedom" which - to you - looks identical to Organic level value!!!.

No, but the core to my problem is about this. Maybe we'd better start
here and take one issue at a time.

As I understand it, my view of the intellectual level differs from
yours as follows:

My view:
Our individual intellect are intellectual patterns of value built
upon our bodies, which are social patterns of value built upon - to
simplify things - one human, which are organic patterns of value
built upon inorganic patterns of value called matter. Our individual
intellectual patterns of value are influenced by other individual's
intellectual patterns of value in the same way that inorganic
patterns of value are influenced by other inorganic patterns of
value and so on.

Your view:
Our individual intellect are carriers of intellectual patterns
of value built upon the social patterns of value called "the
society", what I called a SOM society in my original post.
This society is built upon organic patterns of value called
our bodies which are built upon inorganic patterns of value
called matter. The intellectual patterns are dependant on
society.

My view needs to deal with this dilemma:
It's hard to separate the social patterns of value called our body,
and the organic patterns of value also called our body. My solution
goes something like this. The social patterns of value called our
body is built upon the different organs of our body. These organs
are used by the body as organic patterns of value, they are however
also social patterns of value in that they in turn use different
sub organs to make up the organ. You might think this sounds very
SOM-oriented, and I say, yes but social patterns are very SOM-
oriented in that it's very hierarchical. I wrote that a chair
might be used by some society and in that case, the chair would be
organic patterns of value. Let's say that a society needs an organ
for another organ to sit on. This organ could be a chair or a horse.
The difference, and the *only* difference, between the chair and the
horse, is that the horse is self-reproducing whereas the chair is not.
Therefore I say that it's not the organic (as in carbon based, self-
reproducing life-form) property of organic patterns of value that are
of interest to the social level, but the function of the organic
pattern.
As soon as inorganic patterns of value are able to perform a function
for a society, it can be used by the society as organic patterns of
value. I.e. it has raised one level on the static scale. The disection
of societies inside societies stops where the function stops.

Your view needs to deal with this dilemma:
If we are only carriers of the intellectual patterns of value
supported
by the social patterns of value called the society, then how did the
indian in Lila, I don't remember his name, who opposed the priests and
was banned and excluded by his society, survive? You can't say that
only the organic patterns of value called his body survived, because
he
came back with his intellect intact and destroyed his native society
and constructed a new one.

I could comment more on your comments but I force myself to stop here
and concentrate on one thing at a time.

C'ya

        Magnus



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:55 CEST