Miv, 3WD and all,
In my first post, sticking to the original questions, I tried a description
of the intellectual level and suggested a definition of intellectual
pattern.
This post wants to try a further investigation, exploring some limit of the
SOMish application of intellect and suggesting how the MOQish view can
complete and include the SOMish view.
I'm sorry for the length, I hope someone has the will to resist till the
end...
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Firstly, for who is interested, a long reply for Miv.
On sabato 10 giugno Miv wrote:
(About the definition of level.....)
> Basically I think the problem with the definition of the levels is their
> sequential order. The notion that one level is "higer" then the other
> dosen't convince me. So, Here is my suggestion: ..........
Sorry, but your points convince me even less.... Of course the "orthodox"
MOQ
can't explain everything, but I'm not able to see any step beyond in your
words. How do you explain for example the birth of social behavior, if not
as an "expansion" of biological behaviors?
At the contrary I find the David B. suggestion of concentric circles a very
good image:
> ... the intellecutal level, by definition, transcends and
> INCLUDES all the previous levels. That's why brains are components of the
> intellect. They're included. They're part of what it takes. Intellect
> contains all the levels below it, Social values include biological and
> inorganic patterns and so on. Its like concentric circles.....
(About evolution and technology...)
> Can we tell the direction evolution is heading?
> Perhaps it has something to do with technology.....
Well, technology seems to have a great attraction. Some months ago I defined
technology as the "Social aRT", meaning that it's the human (intellectual)
activity devoted to create solutions especially for social/biological
conflicts.
There's no great intellectual significance in an operating system, or in a
cell-phone, but, thanks to technology, we are able to live in a hi-tech
society where distances are reducing.
It's more our social self that is satisfied: technology has the great worth
to free us from a lot of biological needs. The great goal of technology has
always been the automation of human activities: thanks to it, a lot
of works (social activities devoted to the solution of biological needs) can
become more easy and quick. The possible end of this process could be a
society where almost all biological needs will be automatically solved.
Only recently technology (as Information Technology) has become to support
also our intellectual activities (as help for memory and communication), but
the social goal is however still predominant. I do believe that the Net is
today the ultimate tool for intellectual discussions (the modern Agora),
but again it's another tool created to help us, rather than take our place.
Definitely, technology is there just to substitute us in something of
static. Creating technology is dynamic, but the application of technology is
valid just to free ourselves from static activities.
(About the hieroglyphs):
> Magnus:
>>The hieroglyphs of old Egypt was also just carvings on stone before they
>>knew what they meant.... ... since they lacked the language, the
>>hieroglyphs was reduced to inorganic value...
>
>Marco wrote:
>> <<Intellectual static patterns of value are small pieces
>> of dynamic quality turned by intelligence to a coded and
>> shareable form >>.
>
> Bravo. but not quite there yet...
> The Hieroglyphs themselves cannot be considered
> as intellectuall value. They are simply an inorganic
> mainfestation of the intellectual pattern. Yet even
> if no one could read them, they would still be a
> manifestation of a language, a socio/intellectuall pattern.
>
Good is a noun.
Buono e' un sostantivo
I can assure that these sentences are exactly equivalent (as
intellectual value), even if written in different languages (static codes).
But if tomorrow all Italians will suddenly die and all Italian dictionaries
will disappear, the second sentence will be simply an enigma for the whole
universe (except maybe for Bo, who is improving his Italian day by day :-).
When I write "CODED and SHAREABLE form" I'm exactly trying to say
that if I'm not able to explain my ideas to someone else, they don't exist
intellectually. It's impossible to have any intellectual pattern without
any inorganic support, any biological intelligence, and any social sharing.
DQ and SQ can't be separated. Intellectually the Hieroglyphs have no value,
just like Latin alphabet and English grammar, but intellectual patterns need
some static code like these to exist.
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
And now let's come to the main reason of this post.
I've something to say about this definition of intellectual level offered by
3WD: Patternmaker.... isn't it a little solipsistic?
> 3WD:
> The primary function of the intellectual level is as the maker,
> warehouser, and promoter of patterns.
If you correct the sentence as: "maker, warehouser, and promoter of
INTELLECTUAL patterns", I agree. I suggested intelligence as our innate tool
for making and promoting intellectual patterns, while brain could be our
personal warehouse. But what about inorganic and biological patterns? It
reminds me last September, when Roger posted his famous "Time To Stand and
Be Counted" message. The first question was: "Are all patterns of value also
intellectual patterns?" That "ALSO" was there not by chance....
I've just re-read a brief exchange I had with your ancestor DLT. :-)
I wrote: "...a Pattern is not as an Individual: Pattern is something like
Plato's Idea, a model on which many individuals are formed. The difference
is that in Plato Idea is reality, and individuals are shadows; in Pirsig at
the contrary Dynamic Quality is the undefinable Reality, and patterns can be
seen as:
1) the models used by DQ to become SQ.
or
2) the way we see how DQ became SQ"
Well, after almost one year my MOQish vision has developed a lot, however I
agree with my old self (I just correct now that "or" between 1) and 2) with
an "and").
According to 2) all patterns are intellectual patterns, but I also believe
that 1) is valid: my cat is not a cat 'cause my intelligence creates a cat's
pattern; it's a cat as was generated by a cat-father and a cat-mother. It's
evident that it's impossible for cats in normal conditions to generate dogs
(If someone wants to discuss that, all right, but then I will deny the
existence of Pirsig himself, and will declare the whole MOQ.org a fishing
company :-)
Biological patterns (and inorganic, also) exist even without any
intellect. Biological individuals are generated according to these patterns.
That's another reason why Pirsig puts Inorganic and Biological patterns in a
"objective" frame: we can't deny the inorganic existence of oxygen and the
biological existence of cats, while it's however under discussion the real
nature and existence of social and intellectual patterns.
Another valid point is IMO that there's no accordance between patterns as
seen in 1) (models of SQ) and in 2) (intellectual models to catalogue
reality). Our intelligence is there to interpret these patterns of reality,
but the products of our intelligence can't match exactly such a complexity.
I summarize my view of the intellectual process:
(1)Reality=>(perception)=>(2)Perceived=>(Intelligence)=>(3)Coded pattern.
The two bracketed functions are also more complex as there are other inputs:
reality (1) is not the only input our perception uses to create the
perceived (2) and similarly also intelligence needs something else to create
3). Mistakes of senses , memory of past perceptions, cultural lenses,
language, prejudices... All these static filters are there at the same time
to help and condition the intellectual pattern codification.
The result is that there's not only one knowledge; in Pirsig's words: "there
can be many competing truths".
It can be clear by this example:
a) "A cat is a quadruped mammal"
b) "A cat is a lovely friend"
c) "Cats are unbearable"
a) is a typical scientific sentence. About its truth everyone is seemingly
in agreement.
b) and c) are opposite sentences and our Aristotelian logic is here to say
that only one can be true.
Well, MOQ is here to say that a) is not "truth": it's just an assumption.
The Platypus thread is there to show us the limit of this scientific
approach. If tomorrow for some strange reason a race of cats with three legs
will appear, the "quadruped" connotation will be revisited.
At the contrary b) and c) are in some way more valuable sentences. They also
are not "true", but they can tell a lot about who's speaking. And can tell a
lot about the social value of cats: if every one says that cats are
unbearable, this sentence can become a death penalty for these animals (try
to think what happens to mice when they invade human homes...).
"Then LaVerne asked John, ' what kind of dog is that? ' John thought about
it and said , 'that's a good dog'. " .... (Lila, last chapter).
Re-reading the following rows up to the end we find the real "message" of
the MOQ.
"LaVerne had been asking the question within an Aristotelian framework. She
wanted to know what genetic, substantive pigeonhole of canine classification
this object walking before them could be placed in. But John Wooden Leg
never understood the question. [...] He wasn't joking when he said, ' That's
a good dog.'
[...] The whole idea of a dog as a member of a hierarchical structure of
intellectual categories know generally as 'objects' was outside his
traditional cultural viewpoint. [...] John had distinguished the dog
according to its Quality, rather according to its substance. That indicated
he considered Quality more important. "
The conclusion is:
"Good is a noun. [...] Good as a noun rather than as an adjective is all the
Metaphysics of Quality is about."
What to say else? Just that the a) sentence I wrote is not without value.
It's valuable of course, but it's not the ultimate truth. The scientific
method is an intellectual pattern able to explain efficiently the
biological value of cats. MOQ is not blind to it (while John Wooden Leg
was).
This vantage point is its real force. MOQ is able to explain and contain the
scientific viewpoint, just like the Copernican solution contained and
explained the Ptolemaic universe. But attention! IMO the scientific view is
not the whole q-intellect, even if there's an old Norwegian friend who is
convinced of that. John Wooden Leg was completely on another position, and I
think we can find different positions also in our western culture: now it's
late, but next time I will tell you a story about the Greeks.
-----------------------
-----------------------
tks for your attention and patience.
Marco.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:24 BST