Dear Bo,
You wrote 18/8 18:19 +0200 (to Squonk):
'Q-intellect is as said a STATIC value level, thus some definition of it is
needed and nobody except yours sincerely has provided any'.
We HAVE repeatedly been discussing on this list various definitions of
Q-intellect other than your SOLAQI one (in my words: 'the value of the
distinction between subjective and objective defines the intellectual level
in the MoQ'). In March and April of this year we even ran into a direct
discussion of our respective definitions in the 'Principles' and 'Mysticism
and manners' threads. This discussion ended several times inconclusively.
You didn't react any more to my 18/3 0:01 +0200 post in the 'Principles'
thread and to my 17/4 22:48 +0200 in the 'Mysticism and manners' thread
(which had drifted away from a 'definitions' discusion between only the two
of us). We then picked up the discussion in June in the 'Language-derived'
thread (me 22/6 17:26 +0200, you 23/6 8:51 +0100). This time I failed to
continue it because of holidays. You ended then with:
'My point is that these somish (mind, consciousness, awareness .... etc.)
terms are T H E great obstacle to understanding the MOQ. If brought to bear
on it with their SOM load intact they wreck havoc. Pirsig says -
for instance- that the term mind "....should be avoided", but that is not
possible. They must find some place under MOQ's auspices, and my great
achievement (humble as ever) is that they are the Intellectual level.
Understand me correctly: Along with their opposite - they are Intellect.
And if we manage to see Intellect from a MOQ perspective which is beyond
intellect, it's a
fantastic achievement, but if/when we use intellect's
"aware/unaware"......dee/daa..terms as if
it applies to the TOTAL MOQ they destroy it. Won't anyone ever understand?'
I'll repeat some of my attempts at definition (see CAPITALIZED parts of the
quotes underneath) from BEFORE our discussion in the 'Principles' thread. I
hope they show that my way of defining Q-intellect doesn't DEPEND on SOMish
terms even if I gradually came to associate the intellectual level with
consciousness and awareness.
I would be much obliged if you would be willing to point out some of the
things my definitions don't explain (and SOLAQI does) and how they 'get
bogged down in SOM-sand'. That would enable me to refine them and try to
make them meet your high standards.
By the way: Where did you find a Pirsig-quote that the term 'mind' 'should
be avoided'? I couldn't localize it in 'Lila'. In his footnote 25 of (my
latest version of) 'Lila's child' he identifies 'mind' with the intellectual
level.
18/6/01 22:35 +0200 (addressed to Dan):
'I distinguished between MORAL CODEs under which a level operates (the law
of the jungle on the biological level, competition for status or "the law"
according to Lila p. 183 on the social level, COMPETITION FOR VERACITY ON
THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL) and the way in which levels evolve. The ways in
which levels evolve are analogous, but don't follow a law. They're just all
being pushed/pulled by Dynamic Quality to migrate.'
25/6/01 14:31 +0200 (addressed to Glen):
'THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL CONSISTS OF SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATIONS of
(inorganic,
biological, social and less abstract intellectual) reality.'
4/7/01 10:46 +0200 (addressed to Glen):
'ESTABLISHING TRUTH, THE HIGHEST STATIC QUALITY AT THE
INTELLECTUAL LEVEL'
11/11/01 16:44 +0200 (addressed to you):
'I'm expecting a 5th level sometime in the future, too, but a next level
needs a new TYPE OF "STATIC LATCH" (as "matter" is for the inorganic level,
"DNA-replication" for the biological level, "socializing the young" by
making them copying the behavior of established group members and
"LANGUAGE
FACILITATED ORAL OR WRITTEN LORE" FOR THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL). The
MoQ
doesn't provide one. I don't adhere to your SOLAQI-idea, I'm sorry.'
4/2/02 0:31 +0200 (addressed to David B.):
'Regarding the question HOW TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN LEVELS, I'd suggest
to
LOOK FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF STATIC LATCHES AND 'MORE DYNAMIC'
ONES THE
'HIGHER' THE LEVEL. For the social level and those that border on it I hold
that the static latch latches are:
- of the biological level: DNA (preserving/reproducing species via copying
processes in which RNA, proteins and procreating individuals appear)
- of the social level: habit (preserving/reproducing cultures via copying
processes in which unconscious behavior and raising next generations appear)
- OF THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL: MOTIVES (PRESERVING/REPRODUCING
IDEOLOGIES VIA
COPYING PROCESSES IN WHICH STORIES, PARADIGMS AND EDUCATION
APPEAR)'
5/2/02 0:10 +0200 (addressed to David B.):
'I'd say that a pattern is preserved/reproduced by a process ('things' doing
'things'). You can distinguish different TYPEs OF PROCESSes, different WAYs
OF PRESERVING/REPRODUCING A PATTERN OF VALUES (e.g. copying
DNA/proteins/organisms, copying behavior/habits/cultural characteristics and
COPYING MOTIVES/IDEAS/KNOWLEDGE).'
9/2/02 20:56 +0200 (addressed to Rog):
'An intellectual pattern of values ... consists of the preservation or
reproduction of similar stories. People only take the effort to preserve or
reproduce stories, if these are under discussion, if their 'truth' -or more
general their 'meaning'- is disputed by alternative stories. 'Truth' is the
'fit' of a story with an intellectually constructed 'reality', a supposed
'object' of knowing. This 'fit' is intellectual quality that can be
experienced. If 'truth' is undisputed, the stories lose their character of
'stories about reality'. They are not experienced as 'reference to'
'reality' any more, but as 'reality' itself. 'Knowledge' becomes 'reality';
the 'map' becomes the 'terrain'.
Such stories are not told anymore, except to new members of society. ... In
[those] cases 'truth' is directly subservient to reproduction of a social
pattern of values.
Without competing social patterns of values, the intellectual level is
hardly distinguishable from the social level.
...
AN INTELLECTUAL PATTERN OF VALUES IS REPRODUCED BY PEOPLE
COPYING MOTIVES
FROM OTHER PEOPLE (THEIR REASONING THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY BEHIND
CONSCIOUSLY
MOTIVATED ACTIONS); ITS STATIC LATCH IS REPRODUCED MOTIVES OR
'IDEOLOGY' (IN
A NON-DEROGATORY SENSE), 'ACCUMULATED WAYS TO JUSTIFY ACTIONS'.
In a stable
social pattern of values without serious competitors nearly all behavior is
'normal' and needs no conscious justification. Motivation and copying
motives from others is unnecessary.
Conclusion:
AN INTELLECTUAL PATTERN OF VALUES which is not just an appendage of the
social level needs competing social patterns of values to be
preserved/reproduced. It not only CONTAINS WAYS TO EXPAND 'KNOWLEDGE'
A
GROWING SET OF STORIES ABOUT THE INTELLECTUAL VALUE OF THOSE
LOWER LEVEL
PATTERNS OF VALUES, BUT ALSO WAYS TO JUSTIFY THOSE STORIES Vis--
vis
alternative stories.
...
Recognition of an INTELLECTUAL PATTERN OF VALUES (and thus of alternative
social patterns of values, alternative patterns of behavior) IMPLIES BOTH
THE NEED AND THE POSSIBILITY TO CONSCIOUSLY JUSTIFY ONE'S
BEHAVIOR. It is
necessary because one has to choose between those competing patterns of
possible behavior. It is possible because the intellectual pattern of values
contains not only stories about 'what exists' at lower levels of value, but
also ways to justify behavior with those stories. Consciously
justified/motivated behavior (which I further call 'acting' or 'action')
IMPLIES (RELATIVELY FREE) CHOICE AND THE POSSIBILITY TO BREAK,
CHANGE OR AT
LEAST MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO SOCIAL PATTERNS OF VALUES. The main
'trump card'
(as Angus calls it) at the social level is not DQ itself, but
intellectual quality. AN INTELLECTUAL PATTERN OF VALUES should not be
interpreted as a set of ideas that directly interferes in the social level,
changing lower quality social patterns of values into higher quality
patterns of values. It IS rather A PATTERN OF WAYS IN WHICH SOCIAL
PATTERNS
OF VALUES MIGRATE 'OF THEMSELVES' TOWARD DYNAMIC QUALITY AS
MEDIATED BY
INTELLECTUAL QUALITY: BY COMPETITION, BY DISPUTING THE 'TRUTH' OF
THE
JUSTIFICATION OF THOSE OPTING IN AND OUT OF SOCIETIES, 'is this society
really, objectively, better than that one?'...
...
IT IS THE WAY IN WHICH ... IDEAS ARE PASSED ON AND REPRODUCED (AS
JUSTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION) THAT CONSTITUTES
THE
INTELLECTUAL PATTERN OF VALUES.
...
In chapter 30 of 'Lila' Pirsig traces back the transition from social to
intellectual patterns of value, from 'mythos' to 'logos' ... the 'birth of
the intellectual level' that is occasionally debated on this list. ... he
... deduces that rituals, from which the first intellectual truths could
have been deduced, probably were the connecting link between the social and
intellectual levels of evolution. (p. 442 of my Bantam paperback, end of
chapter 30:) 'He could only guess how far back this ritual-cosmos
relationship went, maybe fifty or hundred thousand
years. ... stone age people were probably bound by ritual all day long ...
so much so that the division between "ritual" and "knowledge" becomes
indistinct. In cultures without books ritual seems to be a public library
for teaching the young and preserving common values and information'.
So early humans probably experienced harmony with 'truth' as a higher level
value which had not yet formed static patterns through rituals from which
they derived a dim understanding of 'cosmic order' beyond the social order
which they did understand. Art and religion were (on hindsight) the kinds of
activity in which early humans explored the 'cosmic order' beyond 'social
order'.
In due course the exploration of 'cosmic order' would give rise to the
exploration of 'laws of nature' and science, which left art and religion to
explore DQ beyond even intellectual quality (truth).
That's were we are now: the intellectual level has fully formed as an
independent level of values and in order to experience even higher level
value we have to return to art and religion.'
10/2/02 12:28 +0200 (addressed to Jonathan):
'Let me try to help you with your trouble with the fourth level:
The 3rd level was in my opinion a new level when it started to grow from the
2nd level, because it had found a new type of static latch.
The type of static latch of the 2nd (biological) level is DNA replication.
Biological patterns of values have at their core the replication of (nearly)
identical DNA strings which lead to comparable -instinctive or
circumstance-and-genetic-ability-dictated- behavior.
Social patterns of value have at their core replication of cultural habits,
'ways in which one ought to do things' that are emulated because of the
status attached to them in a social hierarchy.
THE 4TH LEVEL STARTED TO GROW FROM THE 3RD LEVEL WHEN HUMANS
STARTED TO
MOTIVATE THEIR BEHAVIOR. MOTIVES FORM PATTERNS THAT ARE
SEPARATE FROM THE
PATTERNS OF THE BEHAVIOR THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO EXPLAIN. WHERE
THE SOCIAL
LEVEL ONLY REQUIRED A DIM CONSCIOUSNESS OF INDIVIDUALITY (AN
UNIQUE
INDIVIDUAL POSITION IN A STATUS HIERARCHY), THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL
REQUIRES
CONSCIOUSNESS OF A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR OF A PARTICULAR BODY
(OF A 'PERSON')
AND OF A RESPONSIBLE 'I'.
MOTIVATING BEHAVIOR REQUIRES LANGUAGE, BUT LANGUAGE DOESN'T
IMPLY
INTELLECTUAL PATTERNS OF VALUES. In my opinion the social level does NOT
require language yet. The first humans that createdsocial patterns of values
did not have or need substantially more language skills than anthropoid
apes. They only needed a little bit more 'sense of individuality' to create
the 3rd level.
Behavior is motivated because people want (or are socially required) to be
'true' to themselves, to make their pattern of behavior consistent. By
motivating their behavior, and copying ways of doing that from others, they
create systems of ideas, supposedly referring to 'truth'. These systems of
ideas in turn help them to make their pattern of behavior more consistent:
by modeling their motives and -to the extent that it is consciously
produced- their behavior after a system of ideas.'
12/2/02 9:11 +0200 (addressed to Marco):
'I SUGGESTED 'ETHICS' (comparable with your 'human rights') AS THE
MORALITY
BY WHICH INTELLECTUAL PATTERNS OF VALUES TRY TO CONTROL SOCIAL
PATTERNS OF
VALUES.'
3/3/02 1:00 +0200 (addressed to Marco):
'At the lowest level of DQ that is secured by a static Q-level, that level
has barely come into existence. Its patterns of values can only hope to be
stable, to be a firm latch, by being of service to the lower level.
For the first 2 levels I'm fine with both Marco's 'Something is better than
Nothing' & 'Alive is better than Dead' (17/2 15:21 +0100) and with Rog's 'It
is better to last' & 'It is better to adapt' (23/2 13:32 -0500).
For the 3rd level, I agree with David B. (17/2 16:31 -0700) that Marco &
Rog's 'Together is better than Alone' & 'It is better together' lead into
trouble by suggesting a contest between individual and group. As an
alternative I'd suggest 'Proven practices are better than unproven ones' or
'It is better to do that which worked before'. This encompasses both
individual habits and group practices that are copied by those who feel they
'belong'. This principle creates both stable patterns of individual behavior
and stable, recognizable groups.
The main issue however is WHAT MORAL PRINCIPLE FOUNDS THE 4TH LEVEL.
I agree again with David B. that Marco's suggestion of 'Individuality' (as
better than mass/conformity) is (still) too suggestive of (but I agree,
Marco, not necessarily implying) a contest between individual and group.
Contests between individual and group are internal to the 3rd level: they
are usually conflicts about whether certain practices have proven to work or
not if (only) an individual has tested them.
THE 4TH LEVEL of course 'breaks free' to some extent from the 3rd level. It
CONSISTS OF PATTERNS FORMED BY EXCEPTIONS TO 3RD LEVEL
PATTERNS OF VALUES.
IT CONSISTS OF VALUES THAT GO BEYOND PROVEN PRACTICES, BOTH
INDIVIDUAL AND
GROUP ONES. IT IS NOT INDIVIDUALITY THAT CHARACTERIZED THOSE
BEYOND-SOCIAL-VALUES.
I therefore prefer Rog's 'It is better to understand'. I think Rog rightly
claims (2/2 11:59 -0500) that his formulation applies (real broadly...) to
the 'humanist' principles of 'individual rights, self-awareness, ethics,
freedom, creativity' etc. as well as to the 'rational' principles of '"law"
making, understanding, thinking, reason,
science, rationality, objectivity, truth.....' etc.. THE ESSENTIAL
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 3RD AND 4TH LEVEL SEEMS TO ME TO BE
REFLECTION UPON
FORMERLY HABITUAL AND UNCONSCIOUS PRACTICES. A slight improvement
upon Rog's
formulation might therefore be: 'IT IS BETTER TO REFLECT BEFORE YOU ACT'...
New, consciously/intellectually based (both 'rational' and 'humane'),
practices can be said to be based in 'understanding' what you are doing and
why you are doing it. Some of them imply understanding the inorganic or
biological patterns of values that they are using or adapting to social
benefit. Others imply understanding the social patterns of values (unwritten
law) that they are trying to 'service' and improve (in this first phase, in
which the 4rd level has barely come into existence). Written, prescriptive
law is developed by reflection upon unwritten law, group habits and mores,
weeding out what is 'irrational' and reinforcing and improving upon what is
'rational'.
Remember the FOLDOP definitions you provided 26/11 18:49 +0100 (emphasis
added)...:
'"morality" refers to the first-order beliefs and PRACTICES about good and
evil by means of which we guide our behavior. Contrast with ethics, which is
the second-order, REFLECTIVE, critical and normative consideration of our
moral beliefs and practices.
Ethics: branch of philosophy concerned with the evaluation of human
conduct.'
IN ORDER TO TRIUMPH OVER THE 3RD LEVEL AND TO REACH ITS HIGHEST
LEVEL OF DQ,
THE 4TH LEVEL HAS TO BECOME REAL CRITICAL OF 3RD LEVEL PRACTICES:
IT DOES SO
BY FORMULATING PRINCIPLES, (WRITTEN) LAWS, RESPONSIBILITIES,
DUTIES AND ...
RIGHTS. THE BEST SUMMARY OF THAT HIGHEST LEVEL THE 4TH LEVEL CAN
RAACH IS
FOR ME JONATHAN'S 'RIGHT TO DIGNITY' (20/2 00:25 +0200). I'll return to that
in my next posting in the 'Is Society Making Progress?'-thread.
'Laws of nature', 'the law of the jungle' and 'the Law' are in my
interpretation the HIGHEST level the 1st, 2nd and 3rd level can reach...
formulated from a 4th level point of view (and therefore with negative
connotations).'
5/3/02 10:46 +0200:
'DIGNITY is -unlike status, unlike fame and fortune- an intellectual value.
It IMPLIES HAVING THE POSSIBILITY TO UPHOLD ONE'S PERSONAL TRUTH,
INTEGRITY
AND IDENTITY. Unlike social quality it is not relative in the sense of being
dependent on the dignity of others. (Status, fame and fortune can only be
measured as relative quantities.) It is relative in another sense however:
one can only have dignity relative to the amount and complexity of one's
truth, integrity, identity etc.. A simple-minded person (forgive me the
M-word, Bo) can display the same dignity as a Gandhi with less personal
intellectual values. Most animals have no personal intellectual values at
all and can be used for human purposes without loss of dignity ... if only
they are treated humanely, for otherwise the human involved loses part of
its dignity. I think I read on this list (but can't trace back when and
whom), that a chimpanzee will beg for its life when under threat of being
killed by a human. If that is true, I think chimpanzees should not be killed
for sport or other human purposes, as humans should not be killed by other
humans for selfish purposes. Maybe dolphins, who recognize and act upon the
need of drowning humans (a different species!) are in the same category.
Their 'right to dignity' should at least contain a 'right to life'.
Identifying 'rights' is only one of the ways of evaluating and prescribing
human behavior. Other ways are identifying 'duties' and 'responsibilities'.
They are logically related: to the extent that one is 'responsible' for
something or someone else, one has a 'duty' to safeguard its of her/his
'rights'. EVALUATING AND PRESCRIBING HUMAN BEHAVIOR IS THE WAY IN
WHICH
INTELLECTUAL VALUES INTERVENE IN THE SOCIAL LEVEL (CREATE
EXCEPTIONS TO
SOCIAL PATTERNS OF VALUES) AND THE WAY IN WHICH THEY CAN
ENHANCE THEIR
BALANCE BETWEEN STABILITY AND VERSATILITY.'
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:21 BST