Hugo Fjelsted Alroe (alroe@vip.cybercity.dk)
Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:46:06 +0100
I will follow Jason invitation to present our views of the levels of MoQ, as
this might be a way to better pin down what we agree on and where we
disagree, and a view of the levels seems to capture a lot of what MoQ is about.
My view has a kind of semiotic bent (surprise! ;-), and I will give a quick
and dirty outline of how it looks right now (it seems to change even faster
after I joined the squad):
1 - The levels:
A: Physical level
B: Organic level
C: Social level
D: Intellectual level
2 - The character of the 'jumps' from one level to the next:
A->B: The emergence of (individual) mind and autonomity (please bear with me
on the terms for a while). The vehicle being mediated relations, that some
('organismic') relations are maintained by way of other relations; as
opposed to the physical level with only unmediated relations.
A simple example is the chemotaxi (svimming in a preferred direction in the
presence of a gradient concentration of a chemical) of bacteria, where one
relation is used as a sign of another relation. And the self-sustaining,
against gradient, chemical pumps etc. are basic organismic features.
B->C: The emergence of the cultural mind or society, with yet another level
of mediated relations - the use of organismic relations in order to maintain
cultural relations.
To pick some examples, the tail of the peacock, the antlers of the deer and
probably some human characteristics too, are organismic features which play
a part in social relations, and thus are 'un-fit' to the naked neo-darwinian
eye. Various forms of programmed cell-death is an example in the society of
cells forming our body.
C->D: The emergence of the intellectual mind or 'the world of ideas' (anyone
with a better term?), where ideal (idea-like) relations utilize the cultural
relations in sustaining the intellect.
Some examples are revolutionary ideas transforming or disintegrating
societies. But somehow (?) the 'realization of self', the emergence of
self-consciousness, seems like an essential part of this transition - any
ideas?
Now, the level above a specific level is not necessarily playing a part in
the evolutionary history, that is, not until it emerges as a decisive part.
3 - Alternative description (I dont know if this does any good?):
We could instead use the term 'levels of representations', where the bearer
of the representations in B is the individual, as laid down in genes and
body (investigated in biosemiotics); in C the society (which can involve
different species - in coevolution), using the individual representations as
well as their social and ecological interrelations; and in D the 'community
of rational inquirers', using the societal representations as well as
intellectual relations (which may involve books, computers, and other
intellectual tools).
Or perhaps just state that A->B involves a subject representing the
objective umwelt, B->C involves subjects representing each other, and C->D
involves a subject representing itself. The earth has not settled after this
last revolution.
4 - Where do semiotics enter?:
Sign-wise, these levels may correspond to Peice's three kinds of signs (+
one), iconic signs <-> A-relations, indexical (causal) signs <->
B-relations, symbolic signs <->
C-relations, the fourth not found in Peirce we may name ideal signs or
simply ideas.
The 'minds' above thus could be taken as semiotic interpreters, the
organismic mind referring to icons or exchangeable relations; the cultural
mind referring also to indeces or predictable relations; and the
intellectual mind referring also symbols or arbitrary (conventional) relations.
This somewhat modifies the triadicity of Peirces semiotic system in a way he
probably would not like. And I am sure he would not like the interpreters
being directly involved, In his formal semiotics (a general logic) we find
the Object, the Sign and the Interpretant and both Object and Interpretant
are signs themselves and not physical objects or mindful interpreters.
5 - Going of the track:
'The next level' has been surfacing on the list now and again. Though we may
not be able to say anything with any certainty on this, we may play with the
structure and guess that the ideal mind uses the ideas or intellectual
relations in order to maintain some higher stable state. And further that
this happens in the way the organism selects and dispenses with physical
stuff, the way culture selects and dispenses with organisms and the way that
intellect selects and dispenses with cultures; that is by way of selecting
and dispensing with intellects. To me this looks like the 'grand vision' of
science and spirituality, at least Peirce has such a grand vision and Popper
to some degree - in science, where the community of inquirers is somehow
tending towards Truth in the same sense that the natural evolution seems to
been tending towards the Society of Gaia, and the intellectual history seems
to have tended towards 'a society of intellectual freedom' - all evidently
with major detours and no guarantees.
- Whoops, seems like my mind went off there :-) I better stop before it gets
any worse.
Hugo.
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:56 CEST