THE EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH
Last month, I broached the topic of an evolutionary approach to the topic
of morality and described Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality as an
ethico-evolutionary theory. (I just like the way that sounds ;-). I'd like
to pick up on the evolutionary thread to talk about this month's topic of
the mind and intellect and the interface to society.
Ken Clark and I have had a number of disagreements over the interpretation
of the Metaphysics of Quality. I take his position as being that Quality is
a function of the physical structure of the universe, while I side with
Donny and take Quality to be a mystic force, with the static/dynamic
interaction resulting in the entire evolutionary unfolding of the universe
as our current "best story" explaining the world our experience presents to
us. However, Ken and I do share an interest in the science behind this
story and both believe it to be a valid starting point in investigating the
implications of the Metaphysics of Quality.
Ken has commented on the "B.S." level of recent posts and while I have seen
a number of excellent pieces, I agree that there have been some groundless
meanderings, more last month than this. I'm not claiming to have an answer,
but I do think that some grounding of ideas is in order. While there are
many routes to ground our discussion (sticking closely to the text,
constructing one of Donny's "socially acceptable" proofs, etc.), I suggest
that one way is to take a look at the evolution of the universe as we
understand it and draw some conclusions from that. I argue that this is a
reasonable approach since Pirsig purports that these four levels are the
result of the evolutionary process of the universe: "[mental patterns]
originate out of society, which originates out of biology which originates
out of inorganic nature" (*Lila* Chapter 13). By looking at the origins of
the levels we may gain some insight into the reality and nature of these
levels.
THE CYBERNETIC VIEW
With the popularization of William Gibson's term "cyberspace", it seems
like everything electronic is called a cyber-something. The technical
definition of cybernetics, however, comes to us from Norbert Wiener, an
engineer who studied machine control systems earlier this century. He
defines it as the science of communication and control, applicable to any
self-governing system. This use is close to the use of Plato's use of the
term 'kybernetike', "the art of steersmanship" in *The Republic*
(*Management Systems: Conceptual Considerations*, Schoderbek, Schoderbek, &
Kefalas). See also <http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/CYBERN.html>.
Cybernetics is a branch General Systems Theory, a body of knowledge
concerning the abstract features of systems. It concerns itself with
describing the general characteristic of observed systems, but does not
specifically address itself to any one specific discipline such as biology
or physics. It is therefore applicable to all. I kind of like to think of
it as philosophy with equations.
I describe all this because my study of the principles of General Systems
Theory has shown me striking similarities between it and much of Pirsig's
thought. As a result, I think that the tools of General Systems Theory may
help bring some clarity to our discussion. In particular, I believe that
some concepts from the field of cybernetics might illuminate our discussion
of the four levels. As Magnus has just reminded us, a clear understanding
of the levels is critical to laying out some practical applications of this
philosophy, and it seems we are no where near that clear understanding.
CYBERNETIC CONSTRAINT
In chapter 13 of *Lila*, Pirsig describes the relationship of a higher
level to a lower one as being "in opposition to the lower level, dominating
it, controlling it where possible for its own purposes". The idea of
control or constraint is the very essence of the discipline of cybernetics.
If the levels Pirsig describes do control their lower constituents, then
they should submit to a cybernetic analysis.
Now I would go into my own little cybernetic analysis of the levels, but it
would be based on my own limited knowledge of systems thought and since in
the course of conceiving this post, I found just such an analysis on the
web done by professionals, I'll just comment on it and point you there.
I've known about the Principia Cybernetica project
<http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/> for several years but have only just now looked
more closely at their treatment of evolution. Their work is based on
Metasystem Transition Theory <http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MSTT.html>, which
employs cybernetic principles to explain the emergence of complex systems.
In the evolutionary context, the emergence of life was a metasystem
transition--an evolutionary "quantum" that organized the systems of the
inorganic level (atoms and molecules) through metabolic and replicative
control mechanisms
<ftp://ftp.vub.ac.be/pub/projects/Principia_Cybernetica/WF-issue/Heylighen.txt>.
METASYSTEM EVOLUTION
Now the researchers on the Principia Cybernetica project outline a whole
range metasystem transitions within biology (e.g. movement, the control of
position; and complex reflex, the control of movement), but interestingly,
they come up with an over-arching four-track hierarchy quite similiar to
Pirsig's four levels. We shouldn't find this surprising, since Pirsig
himself noted that his was not a very original organization (*Lila* Chapter
13). However, their evolutionary hierarchy
<http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HISTEVOL.html> has society as its top level:
PREBIOTIC: the developments taking place before the origin of the life,
i.e. the emergence of physico-chemical complexity: the Big Bang, space and
time, energy and particles, atoms and the different elements, molecules up
to organic polymers, simple dissipative structures.
BIOLOGICAL: the origin of life and the further development of the
specifically biological aspects of it: DNA, reproduction, autopoiesis,
prokaryotes vs. eukaryotes, multicellularity, sexual reproduction, the
species.
COGNITIVE: the origin of mind, i.e. the basic cybernetic, cognitive
organization, going from simple reflexes to complex nervous systems,
learning, and thought.
SOCIAL: the development of social systems and culture: communication,
cooperation, moral systems, memes.
SOCIETY & INTELLECT = CHICKEN & EGG ?
I find the order of this hierarchy very interesting given our persistent
problems understanding the social:intellectual interface and the calls by
some among us to enthrone society and deprecate intellect as the list above
appears to do. I myself do not subscribe to this view, but have been very
puzzled and disturbed by the walls we've smashed into in trying to advocate
intellect as the highest level. I feel very strongly that we can't accept
this or any position a priori and need to demonstrate that this is the
correct moral order. I'm not sure that the definitions or evidence Pirsig
gives us in *Lila* are strong enough to support the supremacy of intellect
over society on its own, though I feel intuitively that this is the correct
ordering. Still, I see the contradiction when I look at the arguments and
trace the evolutionary history.
In tracing that history, what we find is interesting and I think very
illuminating. While the cyberneticists place the social track at a higher
level than the cognitive track, they acknowledge afterward that
"communication and cooperation between organisms (social track) takes place
*before* rational thought (cognitive track) emerges, and is in a mutual
positive feedback relation with that cognitive transition."
<http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HISTEVOL.html> (Italics mine.)
I think this explains exactly the kind of confusion we've been experiencing
in talking about society and intellect. The two are creating one another in
a self-reinforcing reaction. Culture determines the context for our
thoughts <http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/COGNEVOL.html> but our thoughts
communicated to one another generate the culture. This process of memetic
(*The Selfish Gene*, Richard Dawkins) replication takes place from mind to
mind and in so doing creates our human society.
The other clue to help us out of our conundrums may be this: The process of
differentiation of intellect and society is still happening. In the article
on the evolution of society <http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SOCEVOL.html>, the
cybernetists characterize the process of human integration into society as
an *ongoing* one. Pirsig, too, tells us that even though Socrates died for
the idea of intellectual freedom, the intellect has just this century
started a serious attempt to wrest control of society. The picture he
paints is of a triumphant intellect--Woodrow Wilson riding through New York
on Armistice Day (*Lila*, chapter 22). I think that image of victory is
premature. In most aspects of our lives, we're still too controlled by
unthinking social prejudice inherited from the culture into which we were
born. We are still too influenced by the media machine that promotes
biological values of sex and violence and celebrity. At the same time,
we've unleashed the demons of biology and chaos by ripping out the social
controls that had been in place. We are in the midst of a great conflict.
CONTROL IS THE KEY
After this investigation of systems principles, especially the relevant
writings on the Prinicipia Cybernetica site, I've found the cybernetic
concepts of control and constraint central to understanding the
relationship of Pirsig's ethical levels. In this new light, I would
elaborate on the emergent meta-systems we're investigated thusly:
INORGANIC molecules controlled by metabolism and replication produce life.
Notice that the "control" here is not something *external* to the
molecules, but a particular configuration of the molecules that constrains
their actions producing new, emergent behavior.
BIOLOGICAL cells evolve the capacity to change position (move), then evolve
the ability to control that movement with respect to perception of their
environment. After these transitions, complex reflexes emerge allowing
comparison of several modes of perception. This sets the stage for
association, where the chosen behavior is conditioned in response to
experience not pre-programmed by genetics.
SOCIAL behavior emerges as primitive communication and cooperation between
organisms with nervous systems.
MENTAL symbols and concepts appear in organisms as the ability to control
associations apart from bare conditioning seen at the biological level.
CULTURE emerges from the exchange of concepts/ideas between organisms by
imposing rules that limit the replication of those ideas. Social behavior
is enhanced.
INTELLECTUAL rules constrain the ability of culture to control thought.
Notice that the "control" here is not something external to the culture,
but a particular pattern of thought within the culture that keeps it from
extinguishing its source--the thoughts of individual minds. This is why the
Bill of Rights (excuse the U.S.-centrism) is an intellectual code: it
controls the culture by preventing it from restricting free thought by
putting specific checks on the cultural institution of government,
protecting speech, assembly, religion, etc.
(The hierarchy above is primarily based on my reading of
<ftp://ftp.vub.ac.be/pub/projects/Principia_Cybernetica/WF-issue/Heylighen.txt>
and <http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HISTEVOL.html>.)
ARE YOU PROPOSING 6 LEVELS?
A lot more than that, actually ;-). Right now, I'm merely trying to clarify
the relationship of Pirsig's SOCIETY and INTELLECT by showing how
interrelated they are. They are, in fact, not something wholly different
from one another. Intellect is a type of constraint on society. It is the
constraint that allows the free emergence of new ideas. These ideas, in
turn, reshape the culture and its institutions in a feedback loop. Both
intellect and society (culture) emerge out of biological mind. (I know that
this conclusion is not original to the list, but I don't have the posts to
attribute it. Sorry!)
I believe this view of intellect as cultural constraints supports the idea
advanced by some that thinking does not equate with intellect. Intellect is
a culturally transmitted *pattern of thoughts* that allows for the creation
of new thoughts. Empiricism, or the idea that experience (not society) is
the sole judge of the worth of a thought, is the very essence of intellect.
That is why science, the practice of empiricism, is an intellectual
endeavor. That's perhaps why the emergence of democrasies that protected
free thought emerged on the inspiration of empiricists like Locke.
THE END
Congratulations if you made it down this far! I hope it's been worthwhile.
To recap, my point in this post was to look at the evidence of evolution
from a systems science/cybernetic perspective to gain clarity on the nature
and reality of the emergent levels Pirsig proposes as the basis for his
ethical system. My conclusion is that while his evolutionary approach is
useful and his analysis correct, his choice and/or explanation of only four
levels oversimplifies the situation. I do think we can get by with four
levels for most ethical questions if, rather than inventing abstract
definitions of each level which only seem to confuse our decision-making,
we emphasize the primary role of each higher level as a *control* or
*constraint* on the lower level. I believe this latter understanding
provides us with a better definition of each level which will, in turn, aid
us in analyzing our moral questions.
Well, let me know what you think. I feel like this point of view needs a
lot of development. I've only touched the surface of the systems
science-Metaphysic of Quality connection and haven't done a very good job
at that--not enough structure, examples, and inconsistent/imprecise use of
language. But it's very late. As a parting thought, I do encourage you to
take a close look at the work on Principia Cybernetica. There's a lot there
and while some of it is rather technical, I think it's all quite powerful
and interesting. It's informed my understanding of Pirsig tremendously.
Cheers,
Keith
______________________________________________________________________
gillette@tahc.state.tx.us -- <URL:http://www.detling.ml.org/gillette/>
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