Bo and all moffers,
Firstly I apologize for my mistake:
> > Horse wrote:
> >> A beehive...etc
>
> I think it was Magnus who wrote it :-).
It was Magnus, of course.
But also Rick wrote:
> MARCO:
> >The same goes for ants and bees in their societies, and I do want to
call
> them
> >societies. They might not have schools or churches, but they do have an
egg
> >nursery, and a well drilled defense army. None of those are
intellectually
> >designed, but they have evolved because they have social value.
and I think it was Horse... it seems like a spy story!
----------
Secondly, I want (and must) answer to two Bo's posts. But as there's the
risk to go too off topic, I begin talking about Giants and levels. I hope it
could be helpful to understand the social Giant, and also it is a useful
introduction for the prosecution of the discussion of Bo's idea.
-----------
According to my MOQ understanding, the use of the word "level" seems a
little bit confused.
Sometime we tend to use "level" as a simple class of similar patterns, where
that "similar" is seemingly meaning "made of (or competing for) similar
values".
Otherwise we use "level" to mean the "space" where similar patterns are
acting. I prefer to use the word "environment" for it.
Finally it's also common to use "level" to mean the "time" where a certain
class of patterns are leading the evolution. In this sense, it's maybe
better to use the word "era".
>From this point, if the Giant we are discussing is a huge social pattern,
it's huge as it has grown to fill its environment. Its hugeness is not
measured in miles or kilometers or kilograms, rather in terms of occupation
of any available social environment. If we look back to recent past, it's
clear to note that the communist social system has been huger than our
western social system, where seemingly we have a little bit of free space
for our social "movements".
I think Bo is right saying that after all the communist giant has been a
step beyond for East Germany, if confronted to the prior Nazi regime. I want
to continue on this path, saying that also our society is far from being
perfect, (do you know that TODAY in Iraq 5000 children die every month for
the consequences of the embargo? The "Giant Chronicle" tells us it's fault
of Saddam, but I would like to know why ALL our "enemies" - like Saddam,
Slobodan, Gheddafi - are healthy living upon their chairs. Maybe they are
not so enemies... ) so the mission of intellectual patterns must be to
improve ALL societies, rather than simply to get free from them.
Last month, in the "freedom" discussion, I introduced the concept of
environment. Every social pattern tries to fill its environment, and freedom
is the dynamic force in opposition to this tendency. You freedom limits my
freedom. The necessary conclusion of this thought is that the Giant is the
result of that filling of the social environment. The force of a Giant must
be to be huge enough to be almost immortal, but not so much to be too
static. That's why Victorian and Communist societies have been replaced by
the present western society: today we have a little more chances to improve
dynamically our society, and our society is not so omnipresent to deny the
possibility of some improvement.
I find a similar situation also at the environments below. After all, our
Planet is just a huge Inorganic Giant, where a lot of inorganic patterns
(rivers, mountains, oceans...) are coexisting in a complicated balance,
where biological patterns have sometime an active controlling role. And a
jungle like Amazon is a huge Biological giant, where a lot of biological
patterns are coexisting in a complicated balance, where social behaviors
have sometime a similar controlling role.
In this vision, it seems to be a problem the great imperfection of our
social patterns, where any balance is seemingly almost impossible. IMHO
this imperfection is natural as Intellectual patterns are not still strong
enough to correct and lead society to an acceptable balance where finally
there will not be (almost) need for any further social evolution. In
conclusion, the mission of intellectual level must be TO FIND THE ULTIMATE
SOCIAL SOLUTION, where all social patterns can live in balance, supporting
at the same time the intellectual activities. Maybe it's just an utopia, an
unreachable horizon, but I do believe this must be our mission as (part of)
intellectual patterns.
Similarly I think also intellectual patterns try to create an Intellectual
Giant. I suggested public opinion as intellectual environment. I we accept
Pirsig's: "...static intellectual patterns as theology, science, philosophy,
mathematics." we must admit that all these patterns have a common tendency
to EXPLAIN something to the people. And the value of such intellectual
static patterns seems to be directly connected to the number of people they
can convince to a certain explanation.
I don't think there's the risk of an intellectual static Giant as long as
the intellectual tools (first of all the freedom of speech) are available
for who has something of new to say. Maybe there's an inverse risk: we
have today access to a huge quantity of information, and a lot of people
seems to be unable to filter all this and find a good (working) intellectual
explanation. We are living in a intellectually loud world, where everyone
speaks and no one can listen to any message. We have the tool, but we are
not still able to use it.
Yes, SOM has been a great attempt to be the intellectual Giant. But SOM has
failed when deceived people that objective science can be the final solution
of every problem. SOM has not been able to understand social values, and in
this sense failed the intellectual mission. Today a lot of people are
skeptical about science, but at the same time an objective science seems to
be necessary to maintain our society.
MOQ could be the solution: it seems to be wider then SOM, but probably
there's something missing.
The solution is open ended.
-----------
>From this point, now I can answer to Bo's posts.
On 12 maggio 2000, Bo wrote:
> Yes, it's the SODV paper, but if you can stand a little bit more
> SOL-talk I feel that this description of intellect is Pirsig's
> unfinished symphony.
It would be nice to have back here Pirsig himself to continue his own
symphony... However <<theology as intellectual pattern>> is Pirsig's, not
mine :-) . Obviously I agree with him, you don't:
> Theology an intellectual pattern? Theology is
> carried on within church circles which is a SOCIAL institution.
If a new class of patterns arises as a tool created by a lower level pattern
to excel within its environment, theology IS an intellectual pattern,
created by church (social pattern) as a tool to justify and support its own
existence.
Again we are falling in the useless taxonomic trap. Are bees social? Is
theology intellectual? Is the Platypus a mammal? You taught me that
inorganic patterns are patterns of experience. When I experience bees I can
be pricked (bad biological experience) and it's difficult to find anything
of social. Magnus point of view could be that he experiences the similarity
of beehives and cities, so in this sense there's also a social value.
Similarly when I experience theology, I think I'm at intellectual level.
There's a message, an explaination, a social purpose. Someone agrees,
someone disagrees. I can debate. Isn't it intellectual?
> > Objectivity is useful in the objective frame....etc
>
> For whom? Inorganic value care nothing about "objectivity". Biology
> even less. I mean when you SENSE no objectivizing takes place.
> And when focussed in social value (EMOTION) one won't hear
> about any subjectivity, it's salvation or damnation! No, only at
> intellect is REASON - objectivity/subjectivity - a focus.
>
When I say that objectivity is useful at inorganic level, I just want to say
that if you want to build an house, objectivity is a good tool. All the
Giant we are talking about has grown thanks to its objective (scientific)
way to explain the behaviour of matter and biosphere. SOM crisis begins when
they try to apply such a scientific method to social and humans behavior.
> > The Metaphysics of Quality says there can be many competing
> > truths....etc
>
> Many truths in the sense that for example the present Big Bang
> cosmology has replaced the Steady State, and Lamarc's
> hereditary theory has been replaced by Mendel's,
Many truths in all sense. If two truths are "competing" that means they are
in some way coexisting. And maybe there's something good in both. The
competition could also be without winners. When you say:
> I agree to whatever definition of anthills is forwarded. This is a
> "Saarland" between matter and life: seen from France it's French,
> from Germany it's German.
it's just what I mean. Sometimes it just depends on the point of view. Man
is the measure of all things. The value of an explanation is measured by its
public agreement. Objective and definitive Truth is a chimera.
-------
On 14 maggio 2000, Bo wrote:
> Excellent exchange Marco.
Thanks. I was a little repented of my impetuosity....
> Here we go again.The mind-intellect that "understands" this and
> that. If the MOQ rejects the mind-matter metaphysics why make Q-
> intellect into a replica of SOM's mind? Unless you buy the idea
> that Q-intellect is the subject/object (mind/matter) dualism itself?
> But you don't.
I don't. And I'm a little disappointed that no one wants to enter this
thread, here or in MD (or maybe I missed some past discussion?) .
> It is your social value that appreciates ...."the advantages of life
> immersed in the Giant".Q-intellect sees nothing but bad things
> when regarding "society"
Ok, I delete the word understand. I accept "appreciate", and also we could
say I socially experience the values of social life. But how can you explain
that only socially I can experience the advantages of society, while
intellectually I can only "see nothing but bad things"? IMHO intellectually
I JUDGE my social experience and then feel satisfied or oppressed. Note that
I'm here talking of my "conscious" intellect. The same intellect who is
able to analyze (in a second time) the low biological value of the hot
stove. My instinctive reaction to social experience is social, while my
opinion is necessarily intellectual.
> All right, intellect is a higher value level,
thanks God....
> but my point is that unless
> intellect ALSO is seen as a giant, we are at its disposal. MOQ's
> enormous achievement is to see intellect as another static value
> level dependent upon its base society.
>
I talked about the possibility of an intellectual Giant above. The point of
our disagreement is just here.You see the intellectual Giant 'cause you
identify intellect with SOM, while IMO intellect is more rich.
I think MOQ is purely intellectual (like every philosophy). It carries an
explanation. Maybe this explanation is excellent, however it's just an
intellectual explanation of universe. It's a metaphysics, just like SOM,
probably better than SOM.
And also your SOLAQI is intellectual. Subject-Object-Logic-As-Q-Intellect
is just an intellectual assumption. You assume this starting point and then
build an intellectual web. SOLAQI assumption is intellectual as it's made of
words. As it's an explanation. As you are searching for agreement. As it's
in competition with SOM.
But you prefer to take off to the fifth level....
> Yes, I cast the MOQ in a role as a budding new level, at least the
> first stirrings of one. This is its attraction: The first chance ever to
> see subject-object logic as MERELY one level of evolution, not
> reality itself as it pretends to be. It gives me a feeling of freedom I
> have never felt before.
>
I think there's no need of a new level to explain evolution. If mammals
evolved from ... fishes (?) , maybe MOQ can evolve from SOM! And your
objection "and how can MOQ contain SOM?" is weak: also the Einstein's
relativity contains Newton's gravitation. Also Copernican system explains
Ptolemaian system.
Every evolved pattern contains its parent.
> Something like Copernicus must have
> felt when he saw the Ptolemaian wheels and crystal spheres
> dissolve.
Copernican and Ptolemaian systems are both at the same level, or not? I
don't deny the novelty of MOQ. It can be a revolution, even within its own
level.
> First of all. Pirsig's idea is that the intellectual level came to
> dominate Western culture after WW1, but if its "coming of age" is
> what is described in ZAMM and its emergence is - as Pirsig hints
> to - around Homer's time (or Wavedave's Abraham or Jaynes'
> "Bicameral" idea) it's not exactly from yesterday. One of us (Denis.
> Que's que tu faire?) has claimed that language itself was the social
> "tool" that became intellect.
>
> Right, SOM (or intellect) was born during the social era - as a
> social tool - but grew to become the intellectual level.
I agree with your vision about the Greeks and the emergence of intellectual
level (where level is here used in the meaning of "class of patterns"). And
you surely remember my adulation of Denis' language idea. (I join your call
to our old friend Denis! :-)
But your conclusion:
> Now the
> quality idea is born in the intellectual era, as an advanced
> intellectual tool, and will eventually outgrow its parent level to
> become a value of its own some day.
is not necessary. Everything works also remaining within the intellectual
level.
> You invite me to discuss the SOL and then shut up? It's hard not
> sounding like a Bible seller because I can see no future for the
> MOQ without this development. What can transcend the
> intellectual level seen as a mental realm where ideas reside?
> Where SOM is one idea and QUALITY is another idea? I'm not
> dogmatic so if you can convince me I am all "ears"
>
I also would like to extend the MOQ. It's not easy. No metaphysics is
perfect, nor MOQ. I think you pursued a great path to its expansion, but now
IMHO you are on a wrong way.
I never say "SHUT UP" to anyone, nor to my cat! I invite everyone to
discuss your SOLAQI. I just compared you to a Bible seller (Bible, not
heroin ! :-) just because you take every occasion to give just a drop of
your ideas to convince us, but I didn't find any your complete essay on the
forum, or at least a suggestion to discuss it one month here in MF. Yet, it
seems there's a lot of people interested.
------------------
I'm tired. It's 2:15 A.M. And I could be wrong. Sometimes I ask myself why
I'm here. Then I ask myself: what is this "I" who is here?
time to sleep.
Ciao.
Marco.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:21 BST