(CROSS-REFERENCING EXPT. CONTINUES)
REFERENCES:
Bodvar - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9812/0401.html
Jonathan - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9812/0406.html
Bodvar - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9901/0013.html
Mary - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9901/0020.html
Magnus - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9812/0066.html
Hi Bodvar, Mary, (Magnus), LilaQs,
On 30th Dec, JONATHAN asked in
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9812/0406.html
<<<Question - does any "metaphysical" division, including
the levels of the MoQ, have any value outside Intellect?>>>>
BODVAR replied in
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9901/0013.html
<<<<I alternate between two answers:
1) No, not in the MOQ, but many seem to think so. In that they bring
along SOM's intellect and impose the subject-object division to - for
instance - Biology and Society.....even Matter!
2) Yes: in SOM where intellect is "thinking itself" and thus all
there is. Like you write lower down:
>>>>
Bodvar, it's perfectly okay for you to answer both Yes and No, but
you only refer to the S/O metaphysical division. What about the division
of SQ into levels, or the division of Quality itself into static and
dynamic?
JONATHAN:
<<<If one discards ALL metaphysical divisions, that kills perception
itself. There is no way to distinguish anything from anything else.
You've got to cut the cake to eat it>>>.
BODVAR:
<<<An animal, a cat f.ex. (Garfield :-)) doesn't cut the cake before
eating. Perception works fine without metaphysics, and we humans
perceive Biology too.>>>
Garfield does indeed "cut" the cake, though he uses his teeth instead of
a knife. Reality is too big to swallow whole. Remember in ZAMM how
Phaedrus the teacher helps a student write about the town - then
suggests she narrow it down to just the main street, and finally just
one building?
BODVAR
> Here is the crux of the matter: "Abstraction of any pattern..." as
> opposed to its concreteness: mind opposed to matter. I feel my cheeks
> grow stiff from harping on the danger of superimposing Intellect's
> subject-objectivization on to the other levels
> In (my) MOQ context there is no s-o (abstract-concrete) division
> outside of Intellect.
Interesting that you used the prefixed SUPERimposing. Does that imply
that you already concede that the MoQ levels are Intellectually imposed
on raw undivided reality? I fully agree with that! Also with your
analysis of this as mind vs. matter.
Apparently, you also concede that this is Pirsig's view:-
BODVAR on 29th Dec in
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9812/0401.html
<<<However, in an earlier letter to Anthony (McWatt) he [Pirsig] said
that he equated Intellect with "the mental".>>>
I know that Pirsig himself would never have called it "mind vs. matter",
but this is IMHO because he wants to distance himself from the idea of
such a split within (or beneath) the primacy of the S/O division.
MARY (4 Jan) in
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9901/0020.html
<<<I must be a hopeless SOMite,
since I can't seem to actually think of anything without it being in
the context of subjects and objects. Please, please, give me an
example of how to think without employing it! Could it be that I am
making this more complex than Pirsig intended? Is it really just a
matter of replacing causation with preference? And if we resist
imposing S/Os on the other levels, then how do we study them?
As to abstraction (Jonathan), I view that as an artefact of s/o
logic. I mean, what, after all, are the subjects of abstractions,
other than objects *out there*? >>>
I will go along with Bodvar and say that s/o logic is itself an
intellectual construct - an abstraction.
Some people make a big thing of distinguishing the abstraction from the
"out there" object, e.g.
e.g. MAGNUS (8 Dec) in
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9812/0066.html :-
<<<What I'm trying to get through is that intellectualized
representations
of something is just as real as that something it represents. It is
completely different, it mustn't be confused with the pattern it
represents, but it is just as real. You've never bought that, right?>>>
I still won't buy it. As I replied before, this is Plato's trick of
distinguishing between "horseness" and a real living breathing horse.
It's not that one can't make the distinction, or even that making it
isn't sometime useful (i.e. generalisation), but I can't accept it as a
primary metaphysical division. So Mary, it's not particularly s/o logic
that gives us these "artefactual" abstractions, but the nature of
intellect itself. (Bodvar's SOLAQI agrees with the conclusion, but not
the formulation, in that s/o logic and intellect are regarded as
synonymous).
Back to BODVAR
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9901/0013.html
<<<Biological organisms process signals, but
you want this processing to be an abstraction of the REAL neural
workings. Look. The electro-chemical signalling itself is Inorganic,
while >>>
NO, NO, NO and YES,YES,YES. To perceive of the system as signals vs.
signal-processing neurons is already an intellectual perception or
abstraction. It's certainly a very useful and powerful abstraction! But
"abstract" also means "summary". The abstraction works only as long as
it doesn't leave out something important.
MARY (on Artificial intelligence):
<<<I take a pretty dim view of it. Computers are incredibly stupid. As
far as I know, there's currently no way to get a computer to do what
Jonathan really wants: [snip] It seems to me that computers are perhaps
the single best example of
*intelligence* applied without regard to *value*. >>>
Yeah, tell me about it! But it's worse than that. Most people make
mistakes, but it takes a computer to totally screw things up! Computers
are notoriously bad at distinguishing between a minor error and a
gigantic one. They generally lack the Quality assessment capability that
humans have. That's evidence that the "abstraction" process (coding and
programming) has left something out!
<<<
>Jonathan says:
> Intellectual "conclusions" lay down the way we
> will respond to subsequent events. In that sense intellect "plans" the
> future.
Biological instinct, though, seems to plan in the same way - laying
out the way we will respond to subsequent events. So I don't think
planning could be used to differentiate the intellectual level.
>>>
There's a big difference. Biology, via evolution "tries" combinations to
see what works. Successes are real successes, failures are real failures
(extinction). Evolution "proceeds" in every possible direction, and
natural selection determines the overall direction by removing failures
after the fact.
Planning by intellect works differently in that new combinations are
tried IN THE ABSTRACT. Good ideas are often tested, but bad ideas remain
abstract. On a human level, this can save a lot of REAL pain.
<<<>Jonathan says:
> Does logic serve itself? >>>...
What if I [Mary] restated it to say that logic has *value*; values that
are not the same as those shared by society? And instead of intrinsic
purpose, I said intrinsic value?>>>
Same problem. In what context? I think that's a reasonable question.
Once
you answer it, you are no longer talking about logic in isolation.
<<<I'm still uncomfortable with saying logic has no value in isolation.
If s/o logic is viewed as our primary means of making sense of the
world, then the sense it makes would certainly have value to the
person who thinks it, whether that logic was shared with anyone else
or not. Right?>>>
RIGHT!!! *QED*
MARY <<<>Jonathan says:
> You can't KNOW that other species engage in S/O logic. ... To
> attribute S/O logic to anything other than yourself is a
>part-subjective perception.
But, but, but...! Now *you* are using S/O logic to attack *my* S/O
logic! :) Saying I can't know because I'm separate, just an
observer of my subject. So as long as I'm unable to design an
*experiment* to *prove* otherwise, I have to content myself with just
saying it's unverifiable? What if instead I look at the values
involved? I've observed that horses (for example) have a pretty
sophisticated social structure. Seemingly much more sophisticated
than biology demands. They are also capable of figuring out things.
My neighbor, for instance, has a horse that can open just about any
gate that doesn't have a padlock on it!>>>
Your perception is perfectly valid. It's not empirical by the classical
(5 senses) definition, but IS according to Pirsig's expanded definition.
You assume that *I* (and horses) engage in some sort of rational
thought. Rather than worry about whether or not this is TRUE, it is more
important that this assumption is USEFUL.
<<<>the 4th level could be defined as a change in attitude. hmmmm.
I said this and you (Jonathan) seemed to agree with it somewhat. But
now that I think about it some more, attitude seems to be a
derivative concept. A change in attitude usually is preceded by a
change in knowledge or values, so it's dependent on a primary change
at the social or intellectual level first. Would you agree?>>>
I'd agree that it is a change in social values! The modern age does
involve considerable intellectual development, but the bigger revolution
was in social acceptance of intellect, especially by the Victorians (see
my 28th Dec post at
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9812/0395.html ). That, of
course, led to a huge flowering of academia. Those who dispute this
view should read about the activities of Victoria's husband Prince
Albert.
BODVAR in http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9901/0013.html
<<<<The increasing social co-operation among the proto-humans fostered
an increase in neural complexity: the brain got even bigger. If language
was hen or egg I don't know, but even at this stage there was no
abstraction of a *real* social level: the myths were the social
reality. Language was the best Social tool ever, the common myth
could be maintained over a greater area, but it was also a cuckoo's
egg and became the vessel of the next quality step - Intellect.>>>>
The most important thing here is that myths can be communicated BETWEEN
INDIVIDUALS and BETWEEN GENERATIONS. Myths, as encoded in language,
become heritable items to compliment the genes (and other?) tokens of
inheritance. But let me disagree with Bodvar on one point. IMHO,
language *is* an abstraction, while society is *not*. Still, I agree
with Bodvar on their interdependence.
A thought recently occurred to me that experienced reality can never be
fully objective, because the presence of subject (observer) exerts an
effect. On the other hand, a myth is objective (to the listener) in a
way that experience can never be.
<<<In (my) MOQ context there is no s-o (abstract-concrete) division
outside of Intellect. Myths of origin and destiny are Social
"metaphysics", while the myth of subject and object is Intellectual
metaphysics.>>>
Yes to first sentence, no to second. Metaphysics comes before any
division into levels - it relates to existence itself. Myths are,
without exception, communicable elements within society.
<<<Moreover, If the Biological level is seen as signal
processing this capacity underlies the Social level and as the
Intellectual level is out of Society; signal processing is part of the
Intellect as well BUT IS NOT INTELLECT!!. This is why the MOQ has
something important to say about what is called Artificial
Intelligence. The signal-process is "intelligence". You hint to it too:
>>>
"Signal processing" is a perception or interpretation of how things
happen. In any other than an intellectual context, things just happen.
Whether or not signal-processing IS intellect depends entirely on
definitions. IMO intellect involves signal-processing far more intricate
that the binary operations of simple Boolean logic.
<<<Okay let's say that "logical operations" (Logos) is the ground-stuff
of existence. It becomes another name for value and we have a
Metaphysics of Logos (MoL). ...>>>
That sounds to me like a wonderful definition of SOM.
Since this post is already way too long, I'll end on that note.
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 - 16:02:48 BST