Hi Mary, Glove and Squad
It's taken me a while to get around to get around to replying for which I apologise,
but better late than never - or possibly the reverse dependent on what you think of
my reply!
MARY:
> Horse says:
> The cells of your body co-operate to produce the social PoV's that result in
> a
> unique you. A body is one form of Social PoV's, government or multinational
> corporations are another form.
>
> Hmmmm. I'm confused by this. I thought the cooperating cells of the body
> produced a Biological PoV. Did I misread? Please explain.
As I see it the cells of your body AND the whole of your body are created by
social, biological and inorganic patterns of value. Additionally, the YOU that I
think of when typing this reply has the additional factor of Intellectual PoV's. The
way in which I would refer to either you, your body or any cell in you body would
be dependent upon a particular context. There was talk some time back of a 2-2
or 3-1 split of the levels in some sort of comparison to the SO split. I don't like to
think of it that way, partly bexcause this then tends to do no more than replace a
two way SO split with a 4 way MoQ split complete with all the dependency
problems, but also because I think that within each level there is a point at which
the patterns of that level become distinct (note:distinct and NOT discrete) and
that the overall YOU is a product of the staggering complexity of the interaction of
all the levels in ways that are beginning to be appreciated only recently. The
materialist belief that the whole is no more than the sum of the parts and the
belief that reductionism, experimentation observation etc. will provide all the
answers that are necessary can be disregarded (IMO) as too simplistic. This has
been shown to be the case again and again which is why complexity is often
regarded, along with fuzziness, as suspect because it doesn't necessarily provide
all the answers in the short term. But these two emerging ideas (fuzziness and
complexity) along with the MoQ seem to me to be the correct path to a more
reasonable and accurate description of reality. Any clearer? I hope so! But have a
read of my reply to Glove which is in the same vein.
GLOVE:
> Horse:
>
> The cells of your body co-operate to produce the social PoV's that result in
> a
> unique you. A body is one form of Social PoV's, government or multinational
> corporations are another form.
>
> Horse, what i am asking is why the cells of the body co-operate. that they
> do is a given, yes. but by what mechanism does this take place, if it is
> indeed a mechanism?
You seem to be asking two questions. Why and How. How they co-operate is
less important than why they co-operate. I could give some sort of glib answer
like, "because it's moral to do so", but I suspect that this would not be to your
satisfaction and I would agree. Morality at the various levels is a part of the
answer as are choice, need and evolutionary pressure but they are not the whole
of the answer. The short answer is that I do not pretend to have all the answers,
which is why I am part of this group. I feel that I have a better understanding now
than I did at this time last year, due in no small part to the patience and
willingness of most of the group to discuss the MoQ, but my understanding is still
not and probably never will be complete. This is the problem of having a finite
capacity for understanding in a reality of infinite complexity. Any
GLOVE:
> Glove if you consider the massive interaction within the brain and the sort
> of complexity that this represents then there is no need to place instincts at
> the intellectual level. There is also no need to insist that any one location in
> the brain is responsible for a particular behaviour. It is the complex interaction
> and the emergent patterns that govern instinctive behaviour. When chemicals of
> various types are introduced into the brain the interaction is altered in often
> unpredictable ways.
>
> Horse, if we suppose a physical, actual object as instinct, as it would be
> if it were biological, then it is of primary importance that we can point to
> it and say there! that is where the instincts are stored! right there!
> because if we cannot do that, then instinct does not belong to the
> biological level but to either the social or intellect, the subjective,
> non-actual side of reality.
But according to the MoQ a physical actual object belongs to the Inorganic level.
It is inorganic PoV's that are physical. Biological PoV's are not physical. Consider
it this way - what is the difference between a live body and a dead body? The
body is still the same, you can touch it, dissect it etc. but where is the life and
the attributes of life - point to them. A live body is the combination of (at least)
Inorganic and Biological PoV's. Remove the BPoV's and you have a bunch of
components which used to be alive - Pirsig's chemistry professor. There may be
areas in the brain that are more active than others when instictive behaviour (as
opposed to learned behaviour) occurs, but that behaviour is triggered and
processed by a whole host of other processes. The same activity, responses etc.
will not occur in a dead body or brain so saying that a physical part of the brain is
the only thing responsible is inaccurate - other factors are necessary. In a
particular context though you are correct, in that by considering the brain and/or
body as a community (society) of inorganic and biological patterns of value
instincts are also a creation of social value. But instincts do not belong
exclusively in the social level. This is part of the problem of reductionism that I
mentioned in my reply to Mary. I believe that the MoQ must support and
recognize complexity as fundamental to its own existence.
Horse
***********************************************************************
"Prejudice is the greatest labour saving device known to man,
it enables one to form an opinion without having to go to
the trouble of checking the facts.
Quote from Stephen Fry - Source Unknown
(Could be Oscar Wilde ??)
************************************************************************
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 - 16:02:44 BST