Hi Marco, John, Bo (and all those who participated but didn't make it into
my limited memory banks, sorry ;)
Marco, your post summarize the notion of identity in a very clear fashion,
but I still have a problem, here.
>In this I see a great similarity with other kind of systems: especially,
>with biological systems like us (we change almost all our cells in few
days,
>but still we keep our identity). In both cases, the identity of the system
>is not their... substance, but their pattern.
Exact, the identity of a "thing" is its pattern. Or should we say "patterns"
? You see, if I describe a city by its "pattern" (singular), there is
nothing that I can say about it without going into details. If I say "Rome",
I'm refering to a location, a historical place, the laws that govern it, the
people who live in it, and a great number of other things besides. I do not
"need" to think about all this when I say "Rome". To communicate, we just
have to assume that we're speaking about the same thing (the present-day
capital of Italy, as opposed to, say, the Roman Empire, or the metro station
in Paris). So Rome, while an apt moniker and a worthy tool of communication,
does not designate a "pattern" in the MOQ levels, that we could clearly
define, but a "location" in a four-tiered metaphysical space. "Rome" is a
concept of the intellectual level (of the simplest kind, since its only a
"name"), a social system of great complexity, a number of organisms that
animate it, and a physical location with complex inorganic constructs.
"Rome" looks to me like a kind of geological "carrot" of a region composed
of four strata, the levels.
BTW, John B., why did you think I was going to be accused of "speaking SOM",
for that ?
Anyway, a human, as Marco said, is a similar "thing" since, as Pirsig
realized with Lila Blewitt, it exists on many levels. Every seven years we
replace all of our cells, our biological pattern changes from infancy to
aldulthood to senescence in the span of 70-odd years, our social patterns
change according to the social environment we're in, and our intellectual
ones even faster than that. So you could ask yourself, "what will be left of
ME in seven years ?", and the answer would be, "Not much. But what will be
there will be the result of what you are, now."
I think "identity" is another one of these SOM platypi, a consequence of
SOM's need for atomic "things", truths that cannot be reduced to smaller
bits, eventually leading to simple prejudices and subjectivity ("the horror,
the horror..." ;). Patterns of value need no such artifice, because at the
core of each value is Quality, and since Quality cannot be defined... Value
is what your immediately comprehend, your "pre-intellectual" feelings, that
eventually agregate into patterns. Analyse (in the sense that Russel
defined) is OK, but not because it leads us to truths, but because it leads
us to other patterns and values, to new depths, and that, my dear friends,
is Good.
>At the biological/social
>borderline, biological beings work to maintain the social pattern. In this,
>Pirsig is right when he says that to a certain extent the Giant "eats"
human
>beings.
I'm not so sure "the Giant" is the best metaphor for it, for it hints at a
non-human intelligence lording over the lowly creatures that we are. It's
all too easy then for some megalomaniac to come to the fore and pretend to
be its incarnation. As you say below, Intellect is present in individuals,
and has moral pre-eminence over Society. It is (or should be) its guide.
While I agree that SOM "thinking" is woefully inadequate for the job, it
should still be our aim.
>Then, intellectually I can *understand* this mechanism and override
>it claiming that it's time for the social level to work for me!
Yes, but only if it is understood that "me" means Intellectual rights : free
speech, education aiming at intellectual and emotional growth. All the other
rights derive from these because they support the highest moral goal, and
because intellectual rights cannot exist without them. What good is free
speech to an empty stomach ?
USA and Europe are often guilty of ignoring the basic needs of the people
they claim they want to "liberate" and "democratize", thus dooming their
project in advance. They think (or pretend to think) that wealth grows from
democracies where every historic fact points in the opposite direction :
democracies were born from wealthy societies. The fight for equal rights was
always led by a wealthy and educated elite. And if anyone can point any
example of the opposite, I'd be interested to hear them.
In retrospect, I would not. Enough time is already lost trying to justify
our imperial leanings on this forum. Let's just say, for those who have
ears, that justifying financial extortion with beautiful phrases is nothing
short of the prostitution of Intellect to Society.
>By the way, Denis. I've seen that in your eternal investigations of the
>"machine codes" you have come to this formulation:
>
>> "DNA for I/B, nervous system for B/S, Language for S/Int
>> (last two are proposed by me). In every case,
>> the machine code is capable of creating, preserving
>> and passing on data, every time at a higher level
>> (cellular organisation, behaviours, concepts).
>
>I'm glad you have gained the Norwegian Nobel award for that :-) (Hi Bo!)
Pfew ! They took it back right after ! :(
>but I don't see the evidence for nervous system as being the machine code
>for the social level. Firstly, 'cause the nervous system is not a code,
>really (while DNA is). Then, there are several species of animals with a
>well working and developed nervous system and almost a zero social
>behavior. Few months ago I've suggested that in order to have a social
>pattern, there's the need of communication. In few words, we can build
>social behaviors, rituals, rules only if we use some kind of communication
>to unify individual patterns into shared (social) patterns. I think that in
>all the examples of social pattern we will find a basilar communication
>*made of* some biological signal (from pheromones to voice....).
>
OK, I surrender my Nobel Prize to you (as soon as Bo gives it back !).
You're right, communication makes a far better candidate. You have to
differentiate it from language, though. A sign-post is as much communication
as a sentence. Let's draw the line between semiology and linguistics !
Seeya
Denis (who should be finishing his SOM post...)
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 - 16:01:38 BST