Magnus Berg (MagnusB@DataVis.se)
Sat, 11 Oct 1997 19:08:31 +0100
Hi Platt!
>> I agree that intell-patterns do not operate with the laws of bio-patterns
>or
>> any other type of pattern for that matter. But they cannot be supported
>> directly by bio-patterns.
>
>Your example of being the only one left in the world shows that
>intell-patterns can indeed by supported by bio-patterns since society has
>become extinct.
No, it shows that: either intell-patterns can be supported by
bio-patterns
OR the human body is social patterns.
Hmm... so we have three views of the human intellect, I thought it was
only two until now.
Bo thinks that intellect is built upon the society we live in.
You, Platt, thinks that intellect is built directly upon our organic
pattern bodies.
And I think our intellect is built upon our social pattern bodies.
Did I forget anyone?
>For me the message from Pirsig that one
>can rationally make value judgments based on a rational MOQ is perhaps the
>most important message of all.
But if we can't decide which phenomena goes where, and we obviously
can't agree on that, then I think it would be immoral to judge
according to ones personal static level ladder.
I actually think all on LS has quite equal values of what is "better".
I mean, I don't think anyone here is a criminal (although Diana's
first bio on me was quite imaginative in that direction ;-).
This is pure Quality at work, so it would be wrong to make
judgements based on ones personal ladder when one knows that
there is other ladders out there.
>> > The senses of touch, sight, taste, hearing, smell are reproduced
>> > minute by minute by static bio-patterns.
>>
>> Wait a minute, this is not the same reproduction as above. This isn't
>> reproduction at all. It is Quality Events, and every QE is unique. I
>think
>> you of all people should know that.
>
>Are you saying there are no Quality Events in the absence of these senses?
No, I'm saying that these senses are not reproducing anything that has
ever existed before. It isn't reproduction as in copying.
>> BTW, I found the quote in Lila I talked about, (The end of Ch. 11)
>> "... the shift in cell reproduction from mitosis to meiosis to permit
>> sexual choice and allow huge DNA diversification is a Dynamic advance.
>> So is the collective organizations of cells into metazoan societies
>> called plants and animals."
>>
>> I guess it's open for different interpretations, but I interpret it
>> as Pirsig says that plants and animals are social SPoVs.
>
>Social maybe, but not cultural. I interpret Pirsig's social level to be
>synonymous with cultural level.
And I think you take the examples in Lila too literally as definitions.
Cultures are examples of social patterns in the same way that
biology is an example of organic patterns.
>
>Agreed. We both generalize which makes our conversation so open and
>interesting (to me anyway). But I wouldn't call DQ a non-significant
>variable, nor do I think it's possible to get rid of DQ in our discussions
>because it is firmly embedded in static patterns, especially social and
>intellectual patterns.
No, of course DQ is most significant. But I don't think DQ is in any
way embedded in any static level. The first split of Quality is into
Dynamic and Static Quality. DQ still has the ability to affect all
naturally evolved static patterns, but not artificially constructed
static patterns. Naturally evolved static patterns could never have
evolved if DQ weren't able to affect it in that direction. Evolution
is walking a narrow path near the equilibrium of opposing static
patterns so that DQ can be the judge.
What I think many on LS says is that all artificially constructed
static patterns are inorganic. I don't. They're just far from the
evolutionary path.
Magnus
>
-- 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 - 16:42:05 CEST