Jonathan 12/21/98:
>To me intellect is the processing, combination and testing of abstract
>patterns (thoughts).
>[The 3 parts to thought are:]
>1. Pattern perception/registration
>2. Memorisation a memory is inevitably an abstraction
>3. Communication a further abstraction into language
>Society is related to BioPoV and InorganicPoV via COMPLEXITY
>communication is related to pattern perception by ABSTRACTION.
>Pirsig took the step from SocPoV to Intellect assuming that it was a
>move up into a new level of complexity. That gave him the fourth level.
>I maintain that what he was really talking about abstraction arising
>from manipulation of symbols of communication.
In programming, an abstraction is a meta model; a model of a model which is
designed to conceal the complexity of the original underlying model. The
question I have is in what way does the social level value such
abstractions? Does the social level need abstraction? Couldn't it get
along perfectly well without it? Does the social level have the capability
of using abstractions to increase its own value? In other words, is the
value of abstraction a value that falls within the domain of values which
define the social level. If not, then abstraction must fall within a
different static level of value. A different set of "value parameters".
How do you see this Jonathan?
Bodvar 12/21/98:
>With Q-intellect division appeared: not as a
>by-product, no, the Intellectual level knows nothing BUT splitting,
>and as long as it reigned unchallenged it was taken for granted that
>reality had a "fault" down its middle.
So, Bodvar, the 4th level is defined by the value of splitting the world
into the observed and the observer. Subjects and objects. I think you may
be right. This is what makes the intellectual level different from the
social; for what need does the social level have for doing such a thing?
Abstraction is not the key difference (Jonathan tell me why I'm wrong here),
but the subject/object split is the key difference defining the intellectual
level. Societies can and have developed without it (i.e.. the East - though
not a perfect example).
Taken to its conclusion then, the intellectual level is not defined by
higher-order brain function. We existed for 1000's of years with exactly
the same brain we have today - but without the subject/object split - that
is, without the intellectual level. Each level can enhance and develop as
guided by its values, that is, as its values predispose it to do. But only
within the framework of that level's values. If there is no value to the
development of something 'for that level' then that level will not develop
it. What does happen, however, is that in the act of enhancing itself in
accordance with its values, a level may predispose the existence of another
set of values. So, one could say that the social level does not value the
subject/object split (I contend that this split does not enhance society),
but the social level did develop such that the subject/object split frame of
reference became possible. It was a byproduct. An unintended side-effect
of the social level, but not valued by the social level - thus, by
definition it is a new level. Pardon me, this treatise is as much for my
own benefit as anyone else's.
Glove 12/21/98:
>but when that conception is shared
>and agreed on by others, it becomes a social pattern of value. the only way
>it could remain an intellect pattern of value would be by not sharing it
>with others perhaps?
Marriage is a social value, but when consummated does it then become a
biological pattern of value? No, I think it is still a social value. The
attraction causing the marriage may well have sprung from the biological
level, and yet the marriage remains a social value.
>kind of a
>chicken-or-egg-first type question that cannot be answered using our linear
>notion of Time.
I think the chicken or egg problem disappears when the intellectual level is
defined as subject/object logic - i.e.., as a certain type of thinking - not
all thinking.
Best wishes,
Mary
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 - 16:02:46 BST