Hi Wim,
You are right. My "definition" of the Social was too vast, more
Wilber-like, than Pirsig-like. Yours focuses on the nature of collective
interaction that is uniquely human. Thus, has more quality, and for our
purposes here the more accurate.
Platt, asked me awhile back, since I had revised the map from ZMM, what
would I do with the map in Lila.
The map in Lila is perfect as an ethical focus. Lays out the potential
conflicts and ethical interactions quite adequately.
Inorganic/Organic
Organic/Social
Social/Intellectual
Intellectual/Intellectual
[I added that last one.]
But, If I were to make a Lila map that showed how things evolved I would
propose three separate strands:
Strand One:
Inorganic
Organic
Strand Two:
Social
Strand Three:
Intellectual
Now, the hypothesis here is that each strand evolves. It has its own
history and levels of Dynamic and Static latching into many variations.
Social and Intellectual, each co-exists and each evolve. Jaynes and Barield
help us to show how the Intellectual has evolved into very different
perspectives over time. [Note: I believe that Jaynes was saying not that
the biology of humans has changed from Bicameral to Post-Bicameral, but that
our conception of ourselves changed and this affected how the biology
functioned. In our times the Bicameral Mind when it kicks in does so and
these people get labeled as schizophrenics.] The point being that as soon
as proto-humans shared any sort of communal existence together the Social
level has started and can now be charted. As soon as ANY SORT OF MENTAL
PROCESSING went on "inside" our proto-humans the Intellectual level started
and its history can be charted. This hypothesis does not have require the
social to exist prior to the intellectual. Though, if we do go back and
examine the evidence and it turns out that this is true, than so be it. The
point is that by separating the strands one need not precede the other. The
focus is on charting their development and not the potential points of
conflict, not ethics but history is the focus of this map.
I think that creation of culture is the creation of symbols. I think that a
proto-human had an "idea" and then tried to communicate that "idea" to
another proto-human. Thus Intellectual level event first and Social event
second.
So?
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: MD Definition of Q-intellect
> Dear Gary,
>
> The start of the intellectual level required the ability of connecting
> symbols with meaning, but the intellectual level is not defined by it. It
is
> defined by the USE of this ability to create intellectual patterns of
> values, by creating (patterned) collections of symbols that stand for
> patterns of experience and by preserving them through manipulating these
> symbols. Intellectual value is experienced as a 'fit' of symbols and the
> experience they stand for (it is not simply a reflection/copy of the value
> implicit in the experience they stand for).
>
> Likewise the social level needs a stronger definition than your 30/8
> 15:27 -0700 definition:
> 'the Social level starts with communication. Social level is the level of
> social interaction.'
> You would at least have to skip the word 'social' from 'social
interaction'
> to get a proper definition. Then it becomes applicable to everything from
> interacting quarks forming a neutron up to our interaction via internet.
> 'Communication' is little better. Even plants communicate! E.G. they send
> out chemicals when they are attacked by gluttonous insects that induce
other
> plants to produce more bitter flavours in order to become less attractive
to
> these insects.
> No I stick to the creation of culture, patterns of behavior that can be
> learned and passed on, as defining for the social level. Passing on
culture
> requires communication, of course, but communication doesn't always create
> culture.
>
> You ask:
> 'And are they two events or again one occurring around the same time as
the
> other?'
>
> You know my answer. Creation of culture predated the creation of
collections
> of symbols by some 2 million years. What is yours?
>
> 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
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 - 16:06:23 BST