Hi Roger and Squad
You wrote:
> Squad,
> Forgive my cut and paste, but I need to integrate all the great posts
> so far (I lost Donny's 12/4 post somehow)
Good stuff in this one, all wrapped up in one post. Almost as time-
saving as prejudice. :)
> As you think on that one, let's move on to intellectual
> patterns. Platt
> previously
> summarized that there are three distinct types (at least) of thoughts.
> 1)Reverie, or
> automatic thinking, 2) decision making, and 3) what I characterize as
> logically consistent
> reality models.
>
> This is disturbing though. How can the first two types of thoughts be
> considered superior
> to social patterns? How can Pirsig state that "i want a
> cookie" type thoughts
> is morally
> superior to a government or religion? This is silly.
Yes, doesn't make sense at all. Each member of a government
would be more moral than the government as a whole.?
My answer to this dilemma is to see each person as a society
supporting the intellectual patterns of the person. Any other view
just causes contradictions and sends you off in circles.
We've talked about this before but it was a while ago so maybe
it's time for another go at it.
Douglas Hofstadter wrote "Prelude... Ant Fugue" in "The Mind's I".
In it, he describes an anteater's view of an anthill. When the
anteater eats ants of the anthill, he doesn't think of himself as
an antkiller, but as an anthill caretaker. He reads the language
of the anthill and takes away the sick parts.
My point is that I see a human brain much like an anthill. It's
not populated by ants but neurons. It's much more complex and
different in many ways but it is nonetheless a social pattern
sustaining intellectual patterns.
The intellectual patterns of a brain are usually called thoughts
and are stored and processed in the brain using the language
provided by the brain.
The intellectual patterns of an anthill are used to send ants
to collect food, or defend the hill from attackers. The anteater
knows the language of the anthill and knows which ants to eat
and which to leave. It says in the novel - "I am Aunt Hillary's
favorite companion".
> And
> aren't these social
> patterns all
> examples of implemented intellectual patterns? I think so.
Most classical societies, cities, countries, religions etc., are.
They are as Maggie says, mediated by intellectual patterns,
and if we can't find examples of social patterns not mediated
by intellectual patterns, we have a serious boot-strapping
problem on our hands.
But if you switch perspective, every animal, plant and human
being is also social patterns, and these are not mediated by
intellectual patterns, only by DQ.
> You seem to imply that the key distinction between a social
> pattern and an
> intellectual
> pattern is in their values. Social patterns pursue social
> good, intellectual
> patterns pursue
> truth. It seems therefore that a thought could be viewed as both an
> intellectual pattern,
> and a social pattern... For example "Democracy". This can be
> viewed or judged
> both
> from its social utility and its logical consistency.
Good point. I see much too often this kind of reasoning. A thought
is an IntPoV, period. A thought can represent a social pattern but
it *is* not a social pattern. You can judge the intellectual
representation of a social pattern, but the judgement is an
intellectual valuation, not a social. It's like making an
artificial nose. It can separate between strawberries and blue-
berries by analyzing the inorganic patterns of the odors, but it
can't value the biological smell. Does it smell good?
A thought can represent any kind of pattern BTW, including IntPoVs.
IntPovs are recursive and makes us capable of self-reflection.
Magnus
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:43 BST