Marco,
You wrote:
>[ by the way, Gerhard wrote:
>> Marco IMO misplaced the Language on the
>> intellectual level, rather than on the social level :-).
>well, Gerhard, I don't know exactly which of my posts you are referring to,
but
>I've always considered language as social. Just, in the past, many (Bo, me
and
>others) have considered language as the *very refined social pattern* able
to
>evolve up to create a new -intellectual- level. Anyway, as this message
wants
>to refresh all that, keep this as the good one.... ]
>
I'm trying desperately to read most of the posts on this list, and also try
to do some digging in the archive. So I might quote you wrong or make
reference to something very old. The important thing, you wrote (6. july
2001 19:24):
>Particularly, the social level is about those behavior that make it
possible for alive beings to live >together: Language, Rituals, Politics,
Economy, Giants.
... and I agree wholeheartedly. I must have skipped this e-mail at the time.
Apologise for bringing in old stuff.
Earlier, during the Levels discussion January 2001, you wrote
(http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/0101/0005.html) :
>Pirsig gives us the example of DNA, as the inorganic "machine code" for the
biological patterns.
>Possible "machine codes" for the other levels:
>EMOTIONS for the social level.
>LANGUAGE for the intellectual level.
>[is it possible to talk about a machine code for the inorganic level?
Force?]
But that do not necessarily means that Language belongs to the intellectual
level?
In the same mail you state:
>Examples of static/dynamic behavior:
>At the inorganic level: Rest/Motion
>At the biologic level: Replication/Mutation
>At the social level: Tradition/Revolution
>At the intellectual level: Method/Creativity
Very interesting. I will probably use "At the social level:
Tradition/Evolution", but that is maybe not very important.
You go on and state:
>My suggestions for the 4 environments:
>Space-time universe
>Ecosystem
>Political-Economic System
>Public Opinion
I maybe have to think about these, but I generally like all except Public
Opinion. Socrates was not too happy about the public opinion, and I don't
think it is a part of the intellectual level. In fact, I would say the
Public Opinion belonged to the social level, and that something like
"Scientific Opinion" could be used at the intellectual level according to my
understanding. Please tell me if you think I'm wrong.
Marco wrote:
>Assigning things to levels is not easy. Probably it's not even very
correct.
No, maybe not, but it helps a lot in trying to understand the levels.
Finally, what do you (Marco and Bo) mean by SOLAQI?
Hope you have time to answer my questions.
Friendly greetings,
Gerhard
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:25 BST