Hi Jonathan,
Only 3 levels? Hmmm?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan B. Marder <jonathan.marder@newmail.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 3:14 PM
Subject: MD Understanding Intellect
> Dear all,
>
> Having gone from regular contributor to avid lurker, it pains me to see
> the enormous explosion in number of posts and level of confusion,
especially
> on the topics of SOM and the intellectual level.
>
> I think most of us agree about the nature of SO thought, and what
> constitutes "objective" as distinct to "subjective" information. I think
we
> also mostly understand the value of objectivity - objective information
can
> be shared (communicated) between different observers, while essentially
> keeping its meaning. This cannot be said of subjective information. Much
of
> human progress is based on this distinction.
>
> However, people miss the point that the distinction between objectivity
and
> and subjectivity is largely derived from empiricism. I think it was Platt
> who mentioned the centrality of objectivity in science. I would add to
this
> that the realization of this principal is not philosophical, but
pragmatic;
> in practice, the yardstick for scientific objectivity is REPRODUCIBILITY -
> something I wrote in my first essay "Zen and the Art of Science" posted to
> the forum back in 1999. Reproducibility is considered the VERIfication
that
> the observation is "true" [intentional tautology].
>
> Science has been tremendously successful at breaking down certain types of
> observations into bits of information that can be easility verified, but
has
> left some patterns almost untouched. If SO is considered a tool, this is a
> deficiency. However, when it becomes part of an ontology, the implications
> are devastating. If unverified patterns are untrue (almost by definition),
> and when truth is considered the absolute standard of reality, then
> hard-to-verify patterns like morals and tastes become regarded as somehow
> unreal. I think this pretty much describes the SO-Metaphysics that Pirsig
> warns us of . . .
> The SO construct as a metaphysics allows science, but denies CONscience.
>
> While the MoQ (as outlined in ZAMM and Lila) clearly shows the utility and
> limits of SO thought, it does not offer a clear alternative (the
> multiplicity of contradictory posts is evidence of this). Bodvar wants us
to
> consider SO thought as the entirety of Pirsig's "Intellectual" level. IMO,
> this approach undermines the MoQ by denying the role of hard-to-verify
> patterns like feelings and emotions in the intellectual process. On the
> other hand, many of us (myself included) consider intellect to include
every
> type of pattern. The molecules, atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons and
> quarks are all intellectual constructs, inorganic patterns that depict
> (communicate) a certain facet of reality. Cells and organisms are also
> intellectual constructs - biological patterns that depict reality at a
> different level. Same goes for social patterns.
> The recurring problem we have is how to regard recursive patterns of
> intellect depicting itself. I think that Pirsig caused this problem by
> making an intellectual LEVEL a part of his MoQ. In this, he inherited the
> same problem that exists in Mind vs. Matter metaphysics, i.e. how mind
> thinks about itself.
> In Lila, Pirsig gave a list of "intellectual patterns" that I consider
> highly problematic. What is intellectual about democracy - is the
aggregated
> decision of millions of electors with average intelligence and education
no
> more than . . . errr . . average, really better than the decision of an
> elite of the smartest and wisest? As a democrat, I think that it is, but
not
> because democracy is an intellectual pattern, but because democracy is a
> highly evolved, highly resilient SOCIAL pattern. The same goes for freedom
> of the press, freedom of speech, trial by jury.
> Actually, Pirsig doesn't exactly say that these are intellectual patterns.
> He says that they are "moral codes that established the supremacy of the
> intellectual order over the social order" (Lila, Ch. 13). This doesn't
tell
> us anything about what the intellectual level actually is.
>
> My own solution to this conundrum is to conclude that there is no need for
a
> separate intellectual level. Intellect is the whole of the MoQ, and
patterns
> of value are all intellectual patterns, subdivided into inorganic,
> biological and social patterns. Those 3 subdivisions are enough.
Before
> anyone challenges met with the example of mathematics, let me give my
> pre-emptive answer: Mathematics is a social pattern; it is a language for
> communicating experiences and perceptions.
GARY'S RESPONSE: I think you are mixing words with things. Everything that
humans consider, all our ideas, views, beleifs, theories, etc are words.
Human inventions. They are not the "things", the non-verbal stuff of matter
and energy patterns that exist even if there were no words. Since humans
live through their minds, their world views, their words, to us in trying to
understand the world everything is the 4th level , the stuff of the mind.
But- this does not mean that there in not a reality before and beyond our
ideas of all that stuff. Hence the need for not just 3 levels but 4. All
human ideas, words is the stuff of the 4th level. All nonverbal stable
patterns of matter and energy is the other 3 levels. We humans made the map
that divide up the unending continuom of existence. We view the world
through the 4th level, our world of words. But this does not mean that if
we did not exist then there would be no rocks, or plants, or trees or
animals, or stars. Thus, there exists levels 1 and 2 outside of the human
mind. The interaction of humans makes the social level. Thus we need all
four levels. You can not reduce them to just 3 and our own maps & words
should not be considered the same as all the rest of the world.
Words are not the things! Alfred Korzybski said it best: 'A Word is not
the things spoken about, and that there is no such thing as an object in
absolute isolation.' [From pg 50 of Korzybski's book Science and Sanity.]
And: 'The map is not the territory it represents, but if correct, it has a
similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness.'
[Korzybski, pg. 58.] Ps: Check out my essay on the web site. "What's
wrong with this picture?"
That's all from Gary, back to the remainder of Jonathan's post.
>
> Finally, it is my observation that when we "intellectually" analyse our
own
> thoughts in this forum, we inevitably look at the inorganic patterns
> (molecular interactions and electric pulses in neurons), the biological
> level (senses, instincts etc.) or the social level (language,
> communication). Again, 3 levels are enough - you don't even need an
> intellectual level to talk about intellect.
>
> My 3-level approach should be no surprise to Lila Squad/MD veterans. It's
in
> the archive from long ago, but somewhat after the material that made it
into
> Dan Glover's book. Dan, if you ever get around to siring Lila's Second
> Child, I'd love to see Pirsig's counterargument.
>
> Thanks to everyone who read this. Now I will go back to lurking . . .
>
> Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:24 BST