Dear Bo,
Thanks for your 6/9 11:13 +0200 reply to my 3/9 13:19 +0200 post.
I hope you don't forget to take into account my 3/9 8:28 +0200 post, which
is essentially about the same (definitions) subject. Therefore I change the
subject heading back to that one's subject.
Yes, I think the intellectual level started approximately with the
Cro-Magnon era. Whether it started 'with language' depends on how broadly
you define 'language'. If 'language' is meant to include for instance the
way in which whales, apes etc. communicate, then the SOCIAL level started
(for me) with language. If 'language' is meant to imply communication of
'ideas' and not merely 'emotions', then indeed the INTELLECTUAL level
started with it.
I don't understand what you mean 6/9 11:13 +0200 with your next sentence:
'OK, that means that there was no period when it dominated the human
outlook.'
You don't happen to mean 'human consciousness' with 'human outlook', do
you?!? But what else do you mean by it?
For me human beings since the Cro-Magnon era express BOTH social AND
intellectual patterns of values. These are discrete. The question which one
'dominated' is therefore meaningless to me.
You wrote:
'no level comes out of the blue but has its origin in the parent level so
there must necessarily be an infancy period in the bosom of the family.'
Don't you understand my idea that a new type of patterns of values (and thus
a new level) consists of 'deviations' from lower level patterns of values
that find a new type of static latch? IF you understand and accept that
intellectual patterns of values don't need an infancy period as part of the
social level. You DID say you agreed with that idea in your 10/4 9:46 +0200
post...
You interpreted me rightly when you wrote that:
'[I] see no value (in [you] saying) that the social level only started when
it had stopped serving biology.'
You counter it with:
'what value you find in your interpretation is beyond me. Then the
biological level started with the forming of the carbon atom!'
Is it really beyond you to understand that an interpretation of the levels
in which levels start at the same time as the corresponding patterns of
values is simpler (satisfying Pirsig's 'economy of explanation' test for
truth better) than an interpretation in which they start at different points
in time?
By the way, the biological level started with DNA, as Pirsig states very
clearly in footnote 3 of (my latest version of) 'Lila's Child' ('Life is
matter that has been configured by DNA. The distinction is very sharp.') in
direct reply to a statement by you ('No one can tell where matter ends and
life begins.').
You wrote 23/6 8:51 +0100:
'I can't for the life of me understand what Q-intellect was before the S/O
logic and for the
umpteenth time: What is described in ZAMM (as the emergence of SOM) can as
easily be
interpreted as the emergence of the intellectual level. What you here call
"multi-subject" IS
the Social Level. If it was Q-intellect there isn't room for any social
level, it's straight from
biology to "mind". In other words SOM!'
You wrote 2/9 8:08 +0200:
'The way you see [intellectual] patterns ... sends intellect so far back
that it next to eliminates the (human) social level.'
You wrote 3/9 9:59 +0200:
'In the discussion about Intellect's relationship with Society I see a lot
of "packaging and redirecting of social substance" by Intellect. Some of the
participants to the extent that there is no Social level left. (Wim and
Wavedave).'
Do you really think that my 3/9 13:19 +0200 reaction ('Could you PLEASE take
care not to misrepresent my ideas.') merits your 6/9 11:13 +0200 reply:
'it depends on our respective definitions. It is the social level - as I
define it - that you eliminate, that's elementary Dr. Nusselder ;-). I
should be more careful of course, but can't put an IMD (in my definition) at
the end of each sentence.'?
The above quotations from your posts seemed to me to imply that according to
you my definitions of the intellectual level and intellectual patterns of
values eliminated the social level HOWEVER DEFINED and NOT ONLY AS YOU
DEFINE IT. You in effect said that my interpretation of the MoQ does not
solve the SOM 'mind out of matter' platypus, because there would be no room
between MY definition of the biological level and MY definition of the
intellectual level.
I am very glad that I seem to have misinterpreted you (or that you somehow
changed your mind) and that you in retrospect really only meant that the
social level as I define it is not eliminated by me, but that you only
disagree with my definition of the social level. That seems to imply that
you agree that my interpretation of the MoQ is also a possible solution for
the 'mind out of matter' platypus. The point at issue between us is then
reduced to the question which interpretation of the MoQ, yours or mine,
solves that platypus (and other platypi) best.
As I wrote above, I think my interpretation of the MoQ better satisfies
Pirsig's 'economy of explanation' test for truth. It doesn't require (like
yours) different definitions of a level and the type of patterns of values
with the same name. It doesn't require disputable interpretations of when a
new type of pattern of values only serves its parent level and when it goes
off on purposes of its own. Nor does it raise (for you) difficult questions
like:
If an intellectual pattern of values (for instance SOM) BOTH serves a parent
social pattern of values (for instance by maintaining the status hierarchy
of the scientific community) AND serves purposes of its own (by answering
metaphysical questions), does it then belong to the social level or to the
intellectual level?!?
Do you think your SOLAQI interpretation of the MoQ is better than mine? If
so, why?
By the way: I prefer to be addressed as 'Wim'. I am not fond of my surname,
I don't have an university degree that entitles me to be addressed as 'Dr.'
and I hate to be addressed with the degree I DID obtain. (My wife's surname
is 'Boss'. You won't be surprised that she didn't want to substitute it with
my surname when we married. (-:)
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 - 16:06:30 BST