JONATHAN ANSWERS ROGER AND CLARIFIES TO MARY WHAT
HE MEANS BY INTELLECT NOT BEING A LEVEL
(This continues the "3 vs. 4 levels" thread)
Hi Roger, Mary, LilaQs,
ROGER wrote [29 Dec]:-
<<<
The levels are defined by their forces of change, not by the emergent
patterns. I would reverse your statement and say that:
1)Intellect(planning) is a unique force of change
2)The levels are defined by the forces of change, not by the emergent
patterns
3)Intellect is a level
>>>
Thanks for putting your view so succinctly. It makes it easier for me to
state my disagreement. Can you clarify 2)? What are the "forces of
change" which define the inorganic, biological and social levels?
Pirsig describes them all in terms of their patterns (static quality). I
believe that the majority opinion within the squad is to regard the
force for change as DQ - which is outside any of the static levels.
MARY to Jonathan [30 Dec]:-
>You have said that there is no such thing as an intellectual level
>separate from the social level, ...
Let me clarify this a bit. I did NOT mean to say that Intellect should
be merged into the social level, though certain patterns Pirsig called
intellectual (democracy, rational discourse etc.) can be considered
social patterns.What I DID say was that while BioPoV and SocPoV emerge
via complex interactions at the lower level (or better, they ARE those
complex interactions), the Intellect emerges from abstraction of any
patterns (not just social). It all gets even more complicated when one
uses the word "intellectualization" to describe the realisation of DQ
into SQ patterns (as does Pirsig).
>...[you] seem to be saying here that our overall intellect
>is only concerned with planning. Is this right? Don't we think of
>lots of things that are not plans?
That depends on definition. Intellectual "conclusions" lay down the way
we will respond to subsequent events. In that sense intellect "plans"
the future.
>Where does logic fit? I agree
>completely that intellect is a force for change. In my view it
>has been every since we acquired it. ...
Logic is a system of data processing (or signal/pattern processing)
>But I think it was initially
>a development of the biological
>level that made more advanced society possible....
Yes and no. Logical operations can be performed on many types of
hardware. Even the natural interactions of inorganic molecules can be
considered as logical operations, so I'm hard put to say that logic is
an outgrowth of the biological. Still, I know what you mean. Perhaps to
regard some behaviour as "logical" is (dare I say it) a SUBJECTIVE view!
> It only split off into it's
>own level when it advanced to the point where it no longer served
>society exclusively and instead began to serve itself.
Does logic serve itself? That implies *intrinsic* purpose (read the
September discussion on the purpose platypus).
I would say that logic has NO VALUE in isolation, which means it can't
exist in isolation. On the other hand, I would agree that social
structures which value logic can indeed become self-serving.
>S/O logic has been with us for a very long time, probably as long as we
>have been human.
[snip]
>In fact, I think other species engage in a rudimentary form of S/O
logic too.
You can't KNOW that other species engage in S/O logic. You can't even
know for sure that *I* do (only I myself know that). Remember Descartes?
To attribute S/O logic to anything other than yourself is a
part-subjective perception. A couple of paragraphs back I noted that
inorganic molecules can be regarded as engaging in S/O logic!
>When we began to say, "Hey, I don't 'care'
>what society thinks, this is the way things really are." S/O logic
>became a level at the moment we decided we didn't 'care'.
>At the moment our attitude changed. Oh boy, that opens a
>can of worms doesn't it! Now it sounds like
>the 4th level could be defined as a change in attitude. hmmmm.
[snip]
I mostly agree with that. Once, society functioned almost entirely by
tradition, following tried and tested patterns of behaviour. At some
stage, society accepted "logical argument" as a justification for
breaking with tradition and doing things differently. Of course, society
also institutionalised this same process.
Best regards, and happy 1999 to all ...
Jonathan
P.S. Mary, I apologise for cutting the rest of your post, with its good
arguments and well chosen Pirsig quotes.
Please shout if there's something there which I should have addressed
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