Hi, Squad !
Bored again, so here I am (I should have applied for a degree in
philosophy it seems, my work in linguistics is in the pits).
First, thanks to David T. and Marco for their praises, it seems like I'm
going to have to practice humility a lot to deflate my head now (and I
never was very good at humility in the first place) :(
Anyway, just a few things I wanted to add.
Marco wrote:
>
> If I understand ... the birth of intellectual level was evoked by societies,
> to become more competitive. Individuals begun to use a simple language, for
> example in an initial form of sound signals, to communicate dangers, or
> attack strategies. In that phase this simple "animal language" was only a
> "strange", dynamic social pattern; but language is ... alive. In one
> particular animal, MAN, evolved to words, opinions, philosophies... and to
> cave pictures, arts, science, technology... in one word: Intellect.
>
Two rectifications : first, my belief (but I could be wrong) is that the
ACCIDENTAL birth of a dynamic language allowed human societies to become
more competitive. The reason why language became dynamic may be that its
support switched from DNA-encoded "instinct" to memory. It might also be
a strange change in the memory process (derived from a genetic
mutation), making it more flexible.
I don't know if anyone knows about a series of novels centered around a
prehistoric character named 'Ayla', but this series presented a
cro-magnon girl raised among the neanderthals. They thought this girl
was stupid becaused it took her so long to learn just about anything.
You see, the author (Jean Auel) described the neanderthals as having an
ancestral memory : learning for them was more like a process of
remembering things. How to cook, to hunt, to talk. Their memory was
quite encyclopedic, but the downside of it was that any new concept had
a hard time making it through.
I guess you see where I'm going. Many animals have such an ancestral
memory, never having to learn much because everything they need is
already there. But when you start with nothing, if you going to survive
you need a *very* dynamic memory. When your communication code (your
language) is contained in such a memory, it is bound to change much more
quickly, ultimately taking a life of its own.
My second rectification isn't really one. It's about art. Art doesn't
seems to equate with any one of the levels. It's not biological, surely
not inorganic, to say it is social looks like insulting art to me, and
intellectual ?... well, my definition of Q-Intellect doesn't seem to
have much place for art. Q-Intellect is about defining, and defining
art... well, we know what Pirsig thinks about *that*, don't we ? (Avid,
Roger and David B. had a argument about that in the moq_discuss forum)
Remember, Pirsig said there were 5 codes of Morality, the last one being
the Code of Quality, or Code of Art. Art is the trace that a Dynamic
Event (one might say : a mystic event) leaves in our perception. It is a
rendering of this experience, and as such must be left out of the
levels. It transcends them, IMHO.
> Then all these .. adult intellectual patterns, begun two different wars: on
> one
> side to get free, the clash against society; on the other side, to obtain
> Agreement, each one against the others.
>
You might have noticed it, but my last post didn't talk much about the
social level. Re-reading the above part about memory, you can see that a
biological change seems to be the root of language's dynamicism : so
where is the social level ? Well, I think the biological and the social
are in the first stages pretty much interlinked, if different (so much
for easy distinctions among the levels, as I said in the previous post).
But still, take ants.
Wonderful social organisation, with a species-specific language
(static), and a lot of preprogrammed stuff in their DNA. Their station,
function, much of their behaviour, etc.
Well, ants are still capable of social evolution, because their
behaviour, while very pre-determined, still has room for change. When a
african species (called "red ants" in french) was imported to Europe by
boats (some 20, 30 years ago, according to entomologists), they
encountered a local species that used some of its members as
food-storage devices. They fed them until they were bloated, stocked
them in chambers, and then forced them to regurgitate food when needed.
After a few wars and raids (yes, they have that too, we're not the only
ones), entomologists found that the red ants had copied the trick ! They
had not only captured the storage-ants, but started feeding some of
their own to become ones !
This example is meant to show that communication is only a part of the
(structured) behaviours that make up a society. And that dynamism in
behaviour (leading to more complex behaviours) doesn't always have to
equate in a new level.
But the difference with language is that it conveys more than just
itself. It conveys meaning. And when our memory of meaning started to
blur and mutate, meaning took a life of its own. If our children only
copied the words, they'd be parrots, not children. Until they make the
quantum leap to meaning, they're not intelligent in the MOQ sense
(though they have the potential).
> This vision makes me remember the beginning of JOHN'S GOSPEL:
> "In principio era il Verbo" (sorry, in Italian!). The Italian word "Verbo",
> is your English "Word". If I remember well, in greek original version of
> Gospel "Verbo" was LOGOS. LoGos, LanGuage... maybe the meaning is just
> that Language was the beginning of ... Intellectual level? Sorry, I'm
> running away.
>
Perhaps, but you run in an interesting direction ;)
The notion that old mythology might have more to do with metaphysics
than we want to admit is one I hold very dear.
But that's for another month.
> > In other words, what we have here is the
> > emergence of a new level, which isn't social (when the Indians were
> > forced to learn English they didn't start acting like Europeans).
> > It does seem promising for the Intellectual level, doesn't it ?
>
> > But then, language isn't the same as the Intellectual level. It would be
> > like saying that DNA *is* the Biological level. It isn't. DNA is a
> > molecule. Combined with RNA and other molecules, and contained within a
> > cell it is able to replicate itself and evolve, it's the biological
> > information carrier (pattern-carrier if you want), but it's not
> > Q-Biology.
> >
>
> English colonizers forced Indians to English Language
> just trying to control their culture: if Language is the DNA of culture,
> they tried ... a genetic manipulation!.
LOL ! That's very true ! (or good... whatever...) :)
And as usual, they messed it up.
> > [...] words are static pattern of Intellectual Quality, and
> > whenever we experience Dynamic Quality, we try to put it in a static
> > pattern that we can then experience again. So we try to see the
> > correlations with the static patterns we already have (the process known
> > as "definition"),
>
> I agree. "Define" means not only to give a meaning to something, but also to
> give a "border" to something (it's Latin: "Finis" = end, border). When you
> (subject) define something (object), you lose what's out of that border,
> that is the connection of the object with universe. Definition is a typical
> process of SOM.
Typical process of SOM ?! Jeez, I hope not. I'm no filthy SOMist ! (I
hope)
No, I think definition is a process of intellect, of language. Defining
is needed to distinguish things in the wide continuum of Quality. No
Static Quality is Chaos.
> > What is SOM ? A metaphysics with great Dynamic potential. It created
> > guidelines to access high-Quality intellectual patterns, defining
> > Quality as Good Intellectual patterns : Truth.
> >
> > So, the battle between the Sophists and Plato was already on the
> > Intellectual level, it was a battle between two different world-views,
> > two metaphysics, which *are* intellectual patterns.
> >
> > The Q-Intellect as I see it now is the ecosystem in which competing
> > metaphysics vie for dominance, just as different species vie for
> > resources in Earth biosphere. The most dynamic ones make it to the top,
> > the others don't.
> >
>
> I want to joke (sorry, BO!)
>
> Maybe the main point is to persuade Bo to this conclusion. But I begin to
> understand him: if SOM is "only" an intPoV, and MOQ is "only" another one,
> what will happen when the fifth level will rise? Our intellectual pattern,
> our metaphysics, our MOQ, will combat it , and we will be on the wrong
> side????
>
Why should there be a fifth level ? Anyway, can we imagine it ? What
would it be?
...
Could we have it already ?...
Magnus Berg wrote :
> However, and this is what I think is the most powerful, (and sometimes too
> powerful), thing about the intellectual level: It's recursive. It enables
> us to include something in itself. I can think, but I can also think about
> what I just thought, and then think about that...
>
> That's a truly unique feature, you can't have a cup of coffee inside itself.
> You can't have any other type of pattern inside itself.
>
Right. But it's language, not Intellect, that has that propriety.
In my previous post, I truncated the official definition for rhetoric
purposes, so I'll complete it now :
"Among the many subjects possible for discourse, are the languages
themselves. They can, in any language, be described. This type of
reflexive use of language constitutes what we call the metalanguage, and
is the "sine qua non" condition of linguistics".
While it talks more about discussing the proprieties and structure of
languages, the recursive level is present in this definition. If I can
talk about the medium, then I can also talk about the message contained
herein.
But then, that's a powerful insight into the nature of Intellect : has
the search for meaning created a level ? a meta-level ? Aritotle is the
father of linguistics. He fathered the first division into Predicates
and Arguments, and founded grammar. He first asked the question : "How
do we form new Ideas (meanings) ? New propositions ?"
Has this first recursive step created a new level ?
Hmm...
No. This first step has created the first intellectual understanding of
Intellect, but I believe it was defective. The recursive function of
language has permitted to include Intellect itself into the metaphysics,
but it was only understood as a tool, a function. And it only had one
function. Distinguish between a GOOD and a BAD idea (understood then as
true or false).
The battle between metaphysics means that they needed a tool of
supremacy to off one another. SOM found the stumper : meaning is TRUE or
FALSE.
If meaning is bipolar, then if you're not saying what I'M saying, then
one of us has to go. And that's it : 2500 years of SOM.
But this is wrong. Meaning can be so much more.
"When is a door not a door? -- When it's ajar."
Is this true ? false ? Then it doesn't mean anything, does it ?
How comes you "get it" anyway, then ?
SOM has included (defined) meaning, but the MOQ makes one more recursive
step : it includes metaphysics. It redefines meaning too. Meaning is
value, and value being the empirical grounding of the world, being
QUALITY, it CANNOT be defined.
To come back to Marco's post :
> However, now I've clear why Greece was the leading society at that time in
> Europe. All the greek cities had a special place: the "Agora" (Latin:
> Forum). It was more than a square in the middle of the city: it was a free
> open space in which it was possible to meet people, make business, discuss
> politics, philosophies.
> That freedom evoked the birth of many different philosophies, and of
> Democracy. Schools at that time were something like "discussion groups". It
> was really a Dynamic age, at Intellectual Level!
>
Then welcome into the new Intellectual Dynamic Age !!! We're the Greeks
come around again ! ;)
> But soon society became afraid of all that freedom, schools were organized
> to "define" and control thoughts. It became easier to defeat what wasn't
> "good" for society. And Agoras were changed to ... squares.
>
> I try to answer to the two questions left by Denis.
>
> > Perhaps its
> > ontology wasn't good enough, didn't include enough of the world. Perhaps
> > it was too centered on the social level and lost because SOM had a
> > better grip upon the intellectual level. Who knows ?
> >
> I go on thinking that S/O split was more effective. Only through it, it has
> been possible to create science and technology, and solve some of the
> eternal problem of man. The Giant was only a baby but it was able to help
> SOM.
>
You're right. The Greeks of the time couldn't distinguish between social
and intellectual GOOD, the MOQ wasn't there to tell them about the
levels.
In a quirky way, GOOD was no good to establish intellect superiority
over society because if what is good for society is good for the
intellect, then intellectual debate becomes a popularity contest. It's
getting more people to agree with you than your opponent.
"If they think it's good, and good is the primary grounding of the
world, then I'm right, aren't I ?"
That was a dead-end.
> > Now MOQ has a chance to dethrone it. Its grip on all four levels is the
> > best one I've found yet. So what do you think ?
> >
>
> I think that the chance of MOQ is connected to the situation of ancient
> Greece. Now we have a new form of Agora, the NET, and new forms of school,
> groups like MOQ.ORG. If we look at the present situation, the NET is a big
> risk for the Giant. And the Giant is afraid. When MOQ can compete on
> intellectual level is very attractive. The problem is that the most people
> have difficulty to leave for some moment the lower levels.
Perhaps, but WE have precedents, and you're right, we have the NET. We
can spread the virus (we are, in fact. I take the higher and higher
number of applicants to our forums as a very good sign of the vitality
of the MOQ), and we can do it without fear of the Giant.
They'll never shut us up. It's too late ! HAHAHAHA !!!! ;)
> p.s.
>
> Yesterday I bought a motorcycle!
Ride it, man. And have fun !
As a final note, I'd like to thank all of you for your contributions,
and a special thanks to Bodvar who has proposed this month's subject
which has set my creative juices flowing again. All your posts have been
breeding like mad in my poor little brain and I kind of like this
month's offspring. Hope you'll like it too.
Be good.
Denis
PS : I just looked at the tittle of this post and my blood froze. I
can't let it go like that or you're going to think my ego has reached
its upper limit before final explosion !!!
My modesty compels me to change Marco's tittle into something less...
extreme... (and if you believe that, I've got a nice piece of seafront
propriety in Paris to sell to you... cheap !)
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:52 GMT