At 12:06 AM +0200 10/05/1999, Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
>JONATHAN ARGUES THAT THE 4 LEVELS ARE AXIOMATIC.
>THE ADDITION OF A 5TH LEVEL IS A RED HERRING.
KEITH CONCURS AND OFFERS A SYSTEMS INTERPRETATION OF THE LEVELS.
>Pirsig is so explicit about it
>that I am forced to regard the 4 levels not as revealed truths, but as
>one of Pirsig's AXIOMS for the MoQ. Axioms aren't facts that are
>"discovered". They are starting points, accepted for their utility.
AGREED ON THE AXIOMS
I think this is very well put, Jonathan. I have often looked for hard evidence in *Lila* justifying Pirsig's four-level classification scheme but have found nothing substantial. What we see Pirsig do is lay out these levels at the beginning of Chapter 12
and then try to fit his (no doubt) carefully selected platypi into them, a method which appears to run 180-degrees counter to the index cards or "slips" he describes at the beginning, where the specific examples drive the categorization and classification,
not vice-versa.
Now we've seen in our discussions that nailing down precise definitions of these levels and solving any given moral question with them is quite a difficult endeavor. For the purposes of Pirsig's platypi and for some equally carefully selected moral
quandaries, these broad levels work quite nicely. To use Jonathan's word, they have great utility. In addition, one can find evidence of the existence of these levels outside of *Lila*. As Pirsig notes at the beginning of Chapter 12, they are not very
original divisions. To many familiar with the modern myth of creation--the big bang through the evolution of life and the formation of society--the four levels are almost common-sense, lending them further credence. How well these levels work in solving
real-life moral dilemmas is another question entirely, however. But I'll put that aside for a moment.
The question of a fifth level has come up many times on the MOQ lists, with candidates for the level ranging from spirituality to Dynamic Quality to the MOQ itself. I've generally dismissed any of those assertions in part because the arguments have, in my
opinion, been specious, but mostly because the definitions of levels themselves have been so murky to me as to prevent any analysis of what a fifth level might look like. I recognize, though, that there's no a priori reason why a fifth level might not
emerge. Pirsig's MOQ co-opts evolutionary theory, after all, and applies it to all phenomenon, leaving room open for the emergence of entirely novel possibilities on all fronts. This month's question correctly asks, "But if each level evolved out of the
one beneath it, then is it possible for a fifth level to emerge?" I would say, yes. This would be an extension of the MOQ, and as Jonathan points out, should not be considered a "pure Pirsigian" MOQ.
SHRUBBERY!
That's not to say that it shouldn't be considered at all. I am perhaps at odds with Jonathan here, as I don't consider this month's question, if approached properly, to be red herring. I believe important insights can be gained into the MOQ by attempting
to answer it. If we can figure out the defining criteria for what would constitute a fifth level, we'd have a much clearer idea of what constitutes a level in the first place. This is the last part of this month's question: "how would we recognize [a fifth
level]?"
To answer that question, I think we have to go back to the old question of the definition of the levels themselves. As I suggested earlier, I have not seen an adequate explanation for what constitutes a level. They seem to me to be murky, murky, murky,
especially when we're talking society and intellect. On that particular issue, I am quite enamored of Denis Poisson's recent interpretation of the intellectual level, but it still doesn't provide a clear criterion that works across levels. I believe that's
what we need--a definition not of *each* level but of *all* levels. That is, a definition that tells us what it is to be a level.
EVOLUTIONARY INSIGHT
In previous posts (MOQ meltdown: A Genealogy of Morals v0.1, 11-17-1998 & 11-18-1998), I argued that we need to go back and study the history of the universe to learn more about the definition of the levels. As I said in those posts, "I want to tie the
levels to a specific moment in the evolution of the universe because I feel that doing so will allow us to find, empirically, a definition of each of the levels that would make framing and answering moral questions easier."
That's again my suggestion for pursuing this topic. Pirsig calls his system an "evolutionary morality" that speaks of "patterns of value". I submit that looking at the history of evolution, examining the emergence of those patterns, might give us a clearer
insight, telling us whether Pirsig's four levels are appropriate, given the evolutionary evidence, and what the criteria for a fifth level (any level) are.
CONTROL IS THE KEY
A reading of the evolutionary literature written by the systems theoreticians at the Prinicipia Cybernetica site <http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/> suggests that one criterion for a new level might be that that of control or constraint. Pirsig suggests this is
included in the definition of a level at the beginning of Chapter 12 when he says "The higher level can often be seen to be in opposition to the lower level, dominating it, controlling it where possible for its own purposes." In this light, I would
elaborate on the "emergent meta-systems" of the levels as I did in my "A Cybernetic View of Intellect" post of 8-12-1998:
"INORGANIC molecules controlled by metabolism and replication produce life.
Notice that the "control" here is not something *external* to the
molecules, but a particular configuration of the molecules that constrains
their actions producing new, emergent behavior.
BIOLOGICAL cells evolve the capacity to change position (move), then evolve
the ability to control that movement with respect to perception of their
environment. After these transitions, complex reflexes emerge allowing
comparison of several modes of perception. This sets the stage for
association, where the chosen behavior is conditioned in response to
experience not pre-programmed by genetics.
SOCIAL behavior emerges as primitive communication and cooperation between
organisms with nervous systems.
MENTAL symbols and concepts appear in organisms as the ability to control
associations apart from bare conditioning seen at the biological level.
CULTURE emerges from the exchange of concepts/ideas between organisms by
imposing rules that limit the replication of those ideas. Social behavior
is enhanced.
INTELLECTUAL rules constrain the ability of culture to control thought.
Notice that the "control" here is not something external to the culture,
but a particular pattern of thought within the culture that keeps it from
extinguishing its source--the thoughts of individual minds. This is why the
Bill of Rights (excuse the U.S.-centrism) is an intellectual code: it
controls the culture by preventing it from restricting free thought by
putting specific checks on the cultural institution of government,
protecting speech, assembly, religion, etc.
(The hierarchy above is primarily based on my reading of
<ftp://ftp.vub.ac.be/pub/projects/Principia_Cybernetica/WF-issue/Heylighen.txt>
and <http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HISTEVOL.html>.)"
ARE YOU PROPOSING 6 LEVELS?
A lot more than that, actually, but I didn't have time to go back to the formation of quarks and leptons or delineate each and every evolutionary transition. Right now, I'm merely trying to show how the criterion of "constraint" might be used to define
levels (and in the process ended up with a few more levels than Pirsig did!). There's probably another criterion or three needed in the definition to get us back to a more manageable number of levels, but I think constraint must be on the list.
If that's true, then the level above Intellect must act to constrain Intellect. What might that be? (Fill in your guess here.)
GOOD NIGHT
My conjecture: "The Good".
At this point, the only answer I can give to the middle part of this month's question, "possibilities for the 5th level", (and perhaps the only answer we'll ever be able to give) is the one that brings us full circle. The only thing that dominates the
Intellectual patterns of "The Truth" is "The Good", that is, "Dynamic Quality", that is, "Reality".
So, to conclude this tedious and insomnia-derived piece, even given my initial openness to the idea, I don't currently see a higher 'level' (in the sense of different static patterns of value). If we are to accept Pirsig's hierarchy at all (I hope to say
more on the troubles with hierarchy in a later post), I think the circle must remain closed: DQ-->INORGANIC-->BIOLOGY-->SOCIETY-->INTELLECT-->DQ.
COULD WE EVEN RECOGNIZE IT? (HEREIN LIES A STRAY THOUGHT)
Even if there were a higher level, would we be able to talk about it meaningfully? We are using language, the 'DNA of intellect', to describe intellect, but can intellect intelligently represent something at a higher level of organization than itself? I'm
not sure. Lao Tzu says "the Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao" and I think that might apply here, too. All we could to is call this next level, "the Great Tao", "Dynamic Quality", "The Good", or "God" and stop with those single symbols for the
great (conceptually) unknown above us ...
Cheers,
Keith
______________________________________________________________________
Keith A. Gillette <http://www.iglobal.net/pub/gillette/>
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:36 BST