Hi Jonathan, and all.
I will keep my remark strictly to Jonathan's comments on my comment.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan B. Marder <jonathan.marder@newmail.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 10:20 AM
Subject: RE: MD Understanding Intellect
> Hi Platt, Dave B., Andre, Gary, Bo, Squonk, Scott and all (in no
> particular order),
>
> Let me start by repeating my opinion that led to this thread:
> It is not useful to regard intellect as its own separate level - rather
> intellect is felt in the entire fabric of the MoQ from the inorganic
> level upwards.
>
> Let me start with GARY
> <<<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. >>>
>
> If you have one set of "real" things and another set of "ideas", you
> have what Aristototle objected to about Plato.
> Aristotle is very pragmatic, but wrong. Without generalizing
> observations as patterns (ideas), then the world is a senseless jumble
> of never-ending unique experiences. You need the patterns to make sense
> - and this is exactly what intellect does. The very grouping of ideas
> into different realms (levels) is part of this process.
GARY'S NEW RESPONSE: Well, I had hoped that my response and reference
between words and things was clear without going into much detail, but I
guess not. By saying that there is words and things I am not creating two
sets of "real" things vs. "ideal" things as Plato wrote about. I am just
making a orthodox MOQ point that Pirsig made in Zen and the Art, when he
talked about Gravity. Check out chapter 3 in Zen and the art. Gravity, the
word was invented by Newton. Gravity the thing was not invented by any
human. It existed from the beginning of the Big Bang. It is the force
inherent in all matter. At the time of Plato, or there about, objects were
thought of desiring to connect with the Earth, or some such idea, this was
there words to describe 'gravity'. Every human language, presumably, has a
word for that non-verbal force inherent in matter which in English is
labeled 'gravity'. All of those words are not the equivalent of the
non-verbal reality that is the meaning of the word 'gravity'.
All human words are not the equivalent of the non-verbal reality that they
refer to. To mix up words and human inventions with underlying non-verbal
reality is a huge mistake. This is not Platonic Idealism. It is confusing
the nature of a thing in level 1, which is where the non-verbal force of
gravity could be placed on the MOQ map and confusing it with the word
'gravity' which was first the invention of Newton and thus to be placed on
the 4 level. And after the theory of gravity got accepted it became a part
of the 3rd level. You are mixing up the levels and not recognizing the
differences.
The importance of distinguishing words from things is that we humans can and
do make mistakes. We can have the meaning of a word be one thing at one
time and then change our minds, realize we need a new theory. The
underlying nature of reality doesn't change only our understanding of that
reality changes. The relationship of the Sun and the Earth didn't change
when Copernicus proposed his model of the Heavens and replaced the Ptolemaic
model. Only the 'words' changed!
If you do away with the Intellect level you will forget that this whole
making of levels and describing things are human inventions and not
necessarily true descriptions of all the other levels! We can and do make
mistakes! You need the 4th level there to remind you that all this stuff
that we say about the world is our ideas and not the reality which is
non-human that we are trying to describe.
I will now return you to Jonathan's post:
> Andre, I think that last point is the reason why we need levels (or some
> other way of organising patterns) in the first place. My objection is
> the separation of laws and hypotheses etc. into their own "intellectual"
> level.
> I think it is best to regard all the laws, ideas and hypotheses relating
> to each level as a part of that level. Otherwise we end up making a
> separation between a material world and a world of ideas; I find that
> just as objectionable as the Mind vs. Matter split.
> You see, Bo, I am not out to destroy the MoQ! I think that the concept
> of the intellectual LEVEL undermines the MoQ..
GARY'S RESPONSE: Again you [Jonathan] are taking Pirsig's levels and his
metaphysics which got us out of the mind v body split and putting us back
into it. The Intelect level is a stable pattern of Quality and not
different, from the perspective of Qualtiy, from all the other stable
patterns of Quality, all those other levels! Hence no mind v body and no
SOM! [Sorry Andre I butted into your space. I just got carried away. ]
>
> PLATT
> Since you live in Israel right in the middle of a social vs.
> intellectual
> conflict, your denial of an intellectual level seems to me unimaginable.
> . . .
>
> DMB says:
> Well, I'd characterize the conflict in Israel as a clash between two
> differing sets of social patterns, but otherwise I completely agree with
> Platt on this.
>
> Platt and Dave, much as I stand to gain by classifying the
> Israel-Palestine clash as Intellectual vs. Social patterns, I think it
> is a poor way to argue. Dave, I came down on you previously for phrasing
> many of your arguments thus:
> "My position is intellectual, yours is social, therefore the MoQ says
> that I win . . ."
> I find that approach self-defeating.
>
> DMB
> Denying the fourth level "pulls
> the rug out from under Pirsig's analysis" in the biggest way. It
> destroys
> the MOQ's ability to work as a moral compass [snip]. . .
> JM's conclusion would effectively put fascism,
> fundamentalism and other hair-brained reactionary movements on the same
> level as democracy, rights, pluralism, and the sciences. . . .
>
>
> David, I'll answer that by going to an old proposition of mine - that
> the mediation of conflicts between patterns on the same level is settled
> by the next level up. Thus, biology decides that potassium is good and
> sodium bad, that moderate temperatures are good and extremes bad, that
> sugar is to be consumed, cyanide to be avoided etc. Similarly, society
> dictates the value of agriculture (selecting some plants and animals
> over others), medical care for the weak, settling disputes by
> non-violent arbitration etc.
>
> The obvious extension is that Intellect decides which social patterns
> are best - that was the original basis of the "next level arbitration"
> idea.
> But this isn't quite right. The analysis of how biology chooses between
> inorganic patterns is ultimately an intellectual process.
> It is always intellect that recognises the conflict, and then "invents"
> the next level pattern that resolves it. It is intellect in the guise
> of a pattern called a cell that recognises that sugar is "good" and
> cyanide is "bad". It is all down to judgements of Quality.
>
> Now the reason that I regard fascism as bad is that it is a low-quality
> political idea (how's that for tautology).
> It contradicts many of the "high quality" ideas I value, and has
> demonstrably lead to appalling human costs.
> There is no shortage of intellectual arguments to support the point, but
> it is never intellectual patterns that replace the social patterns - it
> is better social patterns that replace bad ones (we hope).
>
> The only discomfort I have in rejecting Intellect as a Level is Pirsig's
> extensive writing on the new intellectual age that came into being after
> WW1. I think he is correct that something DID change. IMO, until the
> industrial revolution hit, the major philosophy driving resolution of
> social conflicts was conservatism. The institutions of social power were
> mainly engaged in keeping things as they were.
> That changed greatly during the Victorian age, and "progress" became
> important. Thus academia, particularly science, as the provider of the
> tools for planning and implementing social change became increasingly
> important. WW1 perhaps marks the point when the old social order reached
> its lowest ebb. The emergence of a new social order reflects not so much
> a new level but a shift in philosophy, a change in the application of
> intellect.
>
> Does that clarify my thoughts?
>
> 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 - 16:02:25 BST