JONATHAN FURTHER DEFENDS THE IDEA OF
INTELLECT AS A NON-LEVEL ENTITY
Hi Lilacs and a special welcome to several newcomers.
HORSE writes:-
>[my 5th level] proposal was a
>thought experiment designed to provoke thought about the levels - ring
>any bells?
My 3-level proposal was also clearly marked as a trial balloon. So far,
I think it is still flying, and I find it increasingly inviting.
Jonathan:
<<<<"We INTELLECTUALISE patterns of all 3 levels (laws of physics,
biology and
society)">>>
Horse
<<<<If there is no independent Intellectual level then your statement
doesn't appear to make sense. By your own criteria this could equally
well be replaced with:
"We SOCIALISE patterns of all 3 levels (laws of physics, biology and
society)"
>>>>
I don't actually like using the word intellectuallise, but that's what
Pirsig uses. By it, he seems to mean pattern perception or creation
where perception and creation merge into one as the Q-event.
That's where SQ patterns register.
So instead of "intellectuallise", maybe I could write
perceive/create/"patternise"/"staticise"/register ...
...but definitely not "socialise"
Horse:
<<<<You say later that individual thinking falls into the biological
level and collective
thinking is a part of the social level but I would disagree with that on
the grounds
that this puts instinct, learned response, conscious decision making and
contemplative thought on the same footing - biology - which also
doesn't make
sense. All are individualistic and yet the qualitative difference seems
glaringly
obvious. Your statement also means that any other form thought is no
more than
collective agreement and in any case, how do we think collectively -
that's absurd.
>>>>
Rather than use the word "thinking" let me call it decision making, so I
can talk about it at 3 levels - molecular, organism (individual) and
social levels.
Molecular -
Decision making is what we would call
"automatic". Molecular patterns "choose" between alternative paths
according to inherent tendencies. (The natural sciences are concerned
with learning those tendencies and summarising them as scientific laws).
Individual (biological) -
For humans, decision making at the individual level clearly involves
both conscious and unconscious (automatic, instinctive) processes.
Social -
I clearly differentiate collective decisions from
individual decisions. Let me explain this by explaining a simple game
that goes very well over a pint of beer (Lithien, Fintan et al.). In
the game, everyone in the group extends a closed hand containing 0, 1,
2, or 3 coins. Then they each guess what the total number of coins is.
Everybody knows exactly how many coins he/she personally decided to
contribute to
the total, but nobody actually consciously decides the total. There *is*
a collective decision, but it is hidden until the players open their
hands.
I believe that conscious decision making is a unique property of
individual thinking. Decision making and consciousness at this level are
highly overlapped.
At the other levels, we can know about decisions and even predict them,
but we don't have the same sort of consciousness of knowing the decision
as it is being made.
HORSE
<<<<With three levels your only one shortstep
away from SOM with all it's problems and contradictions.>>>>
I agree! Pirsig's 4-level MoQ is also very close to SOM.
It would be "irrational" to deviate very far from SOM.:-)
Identification of intellect as an entity invites a mind-matter split,
whether it is done as a level (a la Pirsig), or as a non-level (a la
Marder). What matters is whether or not this split is regarded as
fundamental and primary. Once the split is demoted, the mysticism vs.
rationalism argument is also diminished in importance.
JONATHAN:
> Horse! Since you bring up empiricism, I ask you to bring some
> EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support the distinction of Intellectual
> from Social patterns:-)
HORSE
<<<But the whole point about empirical evidence and the scientific
method as it currently stands is that it is only applicable at the
inorganic level.>>>
Go tell that to an economist or a social scientist!
<<<<Of course I
could use the same method that you do and state that I *KNOW* that the
Intellectual and Social levels are distinct patterns of value operating
at different
levels, deriving my knowledge from sense data - my sense of quality. Or
alternatively make a perfectly reasonable case, by implication, from the
effect of removal of the Intellect as a seperate level and the addition
of ad hoc
clauses to empirical process and scientific method. But it would take
far too long
:(
>>>>
In my original trial balloon, I *DID* consider this:-
JONATHAN:
<<<<With the 3-level cake, we have no problem in explaining any
behaviour,
be it of molecules, humans or social groups.
Intelligence and thinking fall nicely into the biological (individual
intelligence) and social (collective intelligence) realms. NOTHING IS
LEFT OUT.>>>>
HORSE:
<<<As immoral as the holocaust, or the gassing of Iraqui kurds or the
slaughter of East Timorians or the genocide of native americans or .....
>>>
Glad we at least recognise the same immoralities!
<<<the list continues from
the past into the future unless human rights, which are the product of
the level society would destroy, are recognized and upheld. >>>
If you would read my posts more carefully, you would see that I classify
"human rights" as a SOCIAL VALUE.
<<<When you say "it is not up to me personally to determine society's
values"
you are, in effect, saying "I am allowing others to make my decisions".
>>>
No I'm not. I recognise a distinction between my personal decisions and
the collective decisions in which I participate. I was in the UK in 1979
and proudly wore my "I didn't vote Tory" badge. I made MY decision, but
I accepted that the electorate collectively decided something different
(unfortunately!).
<<<If by supporting the
rights of myself and others to life, freedom of expression, freedom from
the fear of
torture and other expressions of the intellectual level I am undermining
social
values then I'm happy to do so.
>>>
I call those social values. If by supporting them I enhance society,
I'm ecstatic about it!
Jonathan
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