ROG TO MARCO AND BO ON WHETHER ART
CAN SQUEEZE INTO INTELLECT
(WITH A PS TO RICHARD)
MARCO:
So, going back to the "Human Rights" thread, Roger, when you write:
> Pirsig explains human rights as "tweeners" between the intellectual and
> social. I would label such modern rights as "free speech" as
> intellectually-influenced social patterns. They concern social contracts
of
> how people are treated and allowed to interact -- a classic example of a
> social pattern -- albeit an intellectually influenced one
I answer that the "Human rights" you are talking about are "entities". Take
for example the freedom of speech. It's obvious it's social, and it's also
obvious it's intellectual. When this right is discussed as fundamental basis
for the intellectual diffusion of ideas, it's interacting with an
intellectual environment; when it's applied during a trial, it's interacting
with a social environment.I call "patterns" the models used to explain those
interactions.
Of course, you have noticed that I often refer to these entities as being
intellectual, or social, or whatever else. Doing it, I want to evidence the
possible environmental interaction which is IMO more important. Of course the
freedom of speech is social and intellectual, but IMO its intellectual aspect
has more relevance than any other aspect.
ROG:
I characterize it as a social condition which contributes to and is affected
by the intellectual level. Pirsig always refers to it as between the levels.
MARCO:
IMO the solution is in the first words of this post. If I put the focus on
the brain's functionality, of course I consider communication, or pattern
identification, as biological. But if I consider how ideas, science,
technology and arts interact each other in the intellectual environment (by
the mean of messages made of signs ), I'm looking at the intellectual
interaction. The message is indepent by the biological brain. I will sadly
die, but this post could survive after me, and interact with your intellect
exactly like if I was alive. This simple fact is IMO the proof that message
is not biological.
ROG:
I agree that language (abstract messaging with shared verbal or written
signs) is not biological. We are in total agreement here. I would say that
it is probably social though. I could be wrong though (what's new?) so,
please argue back with me on this one. Children, Cro-Magnon's and "savages'
all have, or had, effective and complex language. Certainly language
presupposes some type of primitive society (to paraphrase Popper), but
considering its roots into antiquity, it seems to miss any of the
characteristics of an intellectual pattern.
MARCO:
> meaning (or significance) exists
> when intelligence "defines" the perceived value by the use of signs in
order
> to share it socially. For example, the cat feed has an high biological
> value, but no "meaning", to my cat.
ROG:
> I used to have a cat that would run from anywhere in the house into the
> kitchen every time I used the electric can-opener. To the cat, that sound
> MEANT "feeding time" as we fed it canned cat food. The cat couldn't read
or
> use language, but it could detect patterns and it could communicate. You've
> heard of "Pavlov's dog," this is "Roger's cat."
MARCO:
I love pets, so I don't want to deny them the possibility of being
intelligent. So I change the subject. The water has a biological value for a
tree, but no "meaning". OK NOW? :-)
ROG:
No, it isn't. I cannot argue for a tree, but I think "meaning" does exist
for advanced mammals. I think biological creatures can identify patterns. I
think communication involves social interaction between biological patterns,
and language involves abstracted social communication. My point is that I
think you will run into troubles building a coherent metaphysics where either
meaning or language is primarily intellectual (again, ICBW)
MARCO:
Then you offer a long description of Intellectual level. I'm sorry, I didn't
read it with enough depth, so I don't comment for now. Hope tomorrow. I just
say that I've the impression that you are valuing only the "rational" side of
human brain, and leave secondary the "intuitive" side. I discussed it two
days ago on MF. Your position, that is very common on this forum, contains
the risk of forgetting the "best" part of our mental possibilities.
ROG:
Intuition and creativity are metaphors for DQ in action. They are not part
of the level of static patterns.
MARCO:
I can't imagine ART being less than intellectual. I can't imagine Picasso
being less than Einstein. One possibility is the fifth level, but I'm very
negative about it. We don't need it. IMO the best view is to consider ART and
SCIENCE being two wonderful intellectual possibilities. If only we could
enlarge this poor vision of intellect......
ROG:
I don't know that it is less. I think Platt and Pirsig think that it is
greater. To be honest, I don't know yet. It does not seem to me intellectual
at all. I think forcing it into this level demeans art. If forced to make a
guess though, I would say that PAINTING and DRAWING are social. Art is the
creative, intuitive undefineable aspect of these that can drive painting and
drawing forward. Art is DQ. (Again, ICBW)
ROGER ==>
1) Patterns are simplifications derived from the complex stream of
experience. All life attends to and selects and simplifies experience into
those patterns of most importance. Moving black dot = food for a frog.
Electric can opener sound = food for my cat.
MARCO ==>
Not only life, I guess. The inorganic world also "simplifies experience" and
behaves according to patterns. But if you are using "life" also for the
inorganic level, we agree.
ROG:
I do not know of any examples that inorganic reality simplifies experience.
Certainly, there are inorganic simplifications that we identify, but we are
alive. I would say this is a characteristic of biological, social or
intellectual patterns only.
ROGER ==>
2) The intellectual processes known as science, logic, math, philosophy,
etc. are the systematic processes of discovering, creating, or testing
patterns.
These processes were developed out of society and refined through the
combined learnings of some of the greatest minds of all time, including
Aristotle, Galileo, Kepler, Descartes and Popper. (Unfotunately, until
recently they have tended to follow SOM to the core)
MARCO ==>
OK. I agree on your list of processes, but it's the "etc." which can be a
little problem. If I add to your list of minds also Pablo Picasso, do you
agree?
(more about Art and Picasso below)
ROG:
Nope, I think he was an artistic painter/ drawer, not an artistic
intellectual. Or, perhaps he was JUST an ARTIST.
ROGER ==>
3) Intellectual patterns are those that have been created and "proven" via
these systematic intellectual processes.
MARCO ==>
Intellectual patterns created by intellectual processes. A tautology. Of
course true, but it doesn't add a lot, here.
ROG:
Again I differ. I think this is a critical point. I am saying that
intellectual patterns are those that are derived via a particular
methodology. The difference between a thought and a scientific theory is one
of methodology (as listed below). Methodology is the key.
BTW, I didn't see where we disagreed on the interaction of intellectual and
other patterns, so I have skipped to:
ROGER ==>
Note that the intellectual level is directly related to the pattern forming
process and the systematic ART of distinguishing the Quality of a pattern.
What distinguishes a good pattern? Below are some of the commonly recognized
features of good intellectual/scientific theories:
SIMPLIFICATION -- One key characteristic is in its ability to SIMPLIFY -- to
compress data into a usable form.
VERSATILITY -- Another quality is a pattern's VERSATILITY. For example, how
many different ways can a pattern be used?
TRUTH -- truth "is one species of good" that involves a pattern's correlation
with experience and other patterns. In the famous words of James: "Realities
are
not true, they ARE; and beliefs are true of them."
Intellectual patterns also need to correlate with other theories or other
intellectual patterns.
MEASURABILITY/TESTABILITY -- Another characteristic of a good intellectual
pattern is its testability. Good theories are usually measurable,
quantifiable and falsifiable.
RELEVENCE -- James calls this pragmatism, and built an
entire philosophy around it.
MARCO ==>
I agree on Occam's razor and so on.... You offer a perfect description of
western science. But where is the evidence that western science is the whole
intellect? IMO this is only an assumption (btw, you are not far from Bo's
SOLAQI).
ROG:
Western science, logic, math and philosophy. Yes, this is clear from even a
casual reading of the book.
Pirsig's examples in Lila of the intellectual level are
TRUTH,
SCIENCE,
METAPHYSICS,
POSITIVISM,
SOCIOLOGY,
PROVISIONAL SCIENCE,
TEHNICALLY TRAINED ANALYTIC MINDS,
THE SOCIALISM DERIVED FROM HEGEL AND MARX,
INTELLECTUAL PLANNING,
THE THEORY CLASS, etc. (page #'s are available upon request)
In addition, he speaks of President Wilson and his intellectual advisers as
being at the forefront of the new level. And he mentions that "intellectuals
follow science" and that the level has foundations that "predate philosophy
and science."
Granted he does mention human rights in two places, but in both cases it is
not about the intellectual level, but upon its influence on society.
As for SOLAQI, there are some parrallels, but Bo believes that the level IS
Subject/object metaphysics. Pirsig of course points out (repeatedly) that
the intellectual level, though the most moral, has a clear defect which he
remedies via the MOQ. Pirsig considers the MOQ part of the intellectual
level.
Overall, I think that I may draw the line slightly differently between the
levels than Pirsig does, but I am at a loss to recognize any differences that
are material. Please let me know what I am missing, and let me know how your
ideas mesh with this list. (After all, ICBW)
MARCO:
For example, I already offered in the past the example of Picasso's
Guernica. I can learn from that about the Spanish war more than from any
scientific description. The state of mind of people immersed in the tragedy
of a war is REAL, and it's expressed (explained and communicated) better by
means of a single picture than by means of tons of
simplified-versatile-testable scientific studies.
ROG:
Odd, I had never even known that that was what Guernica was about. But
seriously, I agree that art, novels and movies can express emotion and
tragedy and the human perspective much better than science. Much , much
better. But that doesn't affect this discussion, as these are not the tests
of an intellectual pattern.
MARCO:
And my intellectual
philosophical beliefs about war, socialism, fascism, justice... can be
strongly influenced by that picture (or by a movie, a novel, and so on).
Sometimes with more effectiveness than any scientific or philosophical
book.
ROG:
I don't doubt this. You are human, not a cold automaton. I still have not
fully categorized art yet, but neither could Pirsig. He didn't put it into
the static level of the intellect though. (the most dynamic or moral of the
static levels).
ROGER ==>
IN SUMMARY:
The intellectual level concerns a systematic methodology to create better
and better patterns out of reality. It also applies to the patterns that are
derived through this process.
MARCO ==>
Firstly, for what I wrote above, IMO the creation of better and better
patterns out of reality is not exclusively intellectual. It has been so for
millennia (and maybe it is still) also at the other levels.
ROG:
Agreed. Each has a different evolutionary or emergent process. The
scientific method is just the value process of this level. I am working now
on a lengthy paper to explain this called Positive sum quality. IMO every
level emerges via a self amplifying feedback process. More to follow in a few
months.
MARCO:
Secondly, the Picasso example I offered challenges you to find how is it
possible that my intellect is influenced by art. Both in your and Bo's
assumptions, Picasso is a Platypus.
ROG:
And Pirsig's. That is why I think he put it into "Dynamic morality". I
suggest you follow his example rather than forcing it into a level where it
doesn't belong.
MARCO:
My attempt is to glimpse a possible
development of intellect out of the trap of scientific method. In order to
complete it: I'm not the enemy of intellect (like Bo seems to be), I'm just
arguing that what you are calling intellect is only the first step of
something that has unexploited possibilities.
ROG:
Logic and science only take you so far. DQ is Pirsig's solution. Intuition
and that unexplainable brilliance.
MARCO:
After all, science has been mainly developed during the social age, and
intellectual patterns have been selected in order to survive in a precise
social environment. That's why science is very good to build bridges, while
it's a disaster to describe my state of mind.
ROG:
Pirsig explains some of this as a defect of western thought, which refuses to
deal with the "subjective". I certainly can't solve every problem of western
science in this post though. Could you give me a few weeks? Don't try
forcing art into science though. I suspect you will denigrate art.
MARCO:
Maybe you are like the biologist of the paleozoic age which argues that
multicellular life is the best possible form of evolved biology. My attempt
to put aesthetic-artistic patterns within the same frame of
scientific-methodologic-rational patterns points to the (maybe utopic)
purpose of an intellect which is able to provide both knowledge and beauty.
ROG:
Maybe you are like Woogie Wooganowski in "Something About Mary." In other
words, perhaps you are engaged in a very unhealthy obsession.
But then again, I could just be silly
Rog
PS -- Richard, you have defined Intellectual values as "The values concerned
with ensuring the freedom of flows of ideas and trade within a political
system without hostile intrusion by other intellectual, social, organic or
inorganic values." I think your definition involves several important
valuesof intellectual patterns (ie freedom from authority) but then you apply
them to social organizations. Read Karl Popper. His "3rd world" matches up
virtually identically with Pirsig's intellectual level.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:53 BST