moq_discuss@moq.org,Internet writes:
>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
>
Greetings:
As a new person to this discussion I do not know where you prefer your
responses.
On levels three or four, to be a bit recursive, the choice is not so much
analytical, but cultural—which is to say societal and intellectual. RP it
seems to me prefered 4 because he was trying to root in the Native
American zone rather than the standard western SO zone, a zone which
favors a three part division...Omnia Gallia est divisa en partes tres.
The advantage of a four-fold division is that it allows us to map quality
unto multiple analogs of the universe such as East, South, West, North;
spring, summer, fall, winter;yellow, blue, red, black.. giving us useful
analytical division but retaining dynamic and recursive circularity.
-Rich
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