Hi Jonathan
(and Magnus and all) ,
=======
3+1:
JONATHAN (to Magnus)
> > I go along with the abstract=intellectual. If you remember my "3+1" idea
> > from December 1998
> > (http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9812/0049.html) it was
> > exactly that.
> > The abstraction of intellect from the other 3 levels makes it something
> > quite different.
>
MARCO (previous)
I don't feel the need for any exception at the intellectual
level, as Jonathan suggests. IMO it is just another level. It is indeed
able to encompass the other three, as well as society can encompass
the two below and so on.
MARCO (now):
Now that I've read your 1998 "3+1" message (I was not there then, so forgive
me for my 4 years delay in answering :-) ), I add a brief comment.
You wrote:
«With the 3-level cake, we have no problem in explaining any behaviour,
be it of molecules, humans or social groups.
Intelligence and thinking fall nicely into the biological (individual
intelligence) and social (collective intelligence) realms. NOTHING IS
LEFT OUT. »
Well, I completely agree that intelligence and thinking (and emotions, I
add) fall nicely into the biological realm... and so on, but I don't think
that in your 3+1 scheme (where intellect is purely "abstraction") nothing is
left out. I think that self-awareness can't fall in any of the 3 lower
levels, and that at the contrary it is the very source of intellectual
patterns. I think this is the very message of "Cruising Blues", by the way:
self awareness is not biological, as I have to learn it; and it is not
social, as in order to learn it I have to face my past, my skills, my
intentions.... just abstracting myself *from* society.
JONATHAN::
> I think
> that your sketch of new value patterns emerging from lower levels is
> exactly right, and very much in line with what Pirsig wrote on the
> relationship between computer software and hardware.
MARCO:
So, tell me, saying that my sketch is "exactly right", are you meaning that
you drop your 3+1 idea?
==========
Bio/Soc Boundaries:
> MAGNUS
> >Anyway, I would *not* enjoy one moment of merely trying to construct an
> >artificial division of reality. I'm trying to *find* the division that's
> >already there. That is, I'm trying to find the metaphysics of our
reality.
JONATHAN
> That's just my point Magnus. Where are those divisions? Show them to us!
[...]
> Magnus, that's all very well if you stick to your own examples, but what
> about new problems that arise. Do you remember the "Walking is a social
> skill" thread from Oct 1999
> (http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9910/index.html). At the
> time I was deliberately trying to show that there is no absolute way to
> make a division between social and biological patterns. I'd be genuinely
> interested in your position on this particular example.
MARCO:
Well, I tried a division based upon the simple fact that human beings are (I
think we agree on that) 4-levels beings. So, I think that it is enough to
analyze ourselves to find out those levels.
I repeat my point: biological patterns are inherited information. Social
patterns are learned information. Intellectual patterns are information
about my role within universe, something that no one can really teach me.
This way I suggest a method for pattern cataloguing, before than saying that
this or that "thing" are biological or social....
Even if I think that someone here could not agree about the
social/intellectual boundary, I'm pretty convinced that the
biological/social boundary becomes very clear. And actually that thread
about "walking" was just about the simple point that walking could be social
as we have to learn it.
Enough for now... thanks for your attention
Ciao,
Marco
p.s.
My answer to Magnus in my next message....
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 - 16:01:46 BST