Roger-
I suppose I didn't make clear enough in my post that I agree that "Mind" is
a level of Biology. All I was trying to do was show that Fintan hadn't
actually changed the order in which the levels are arranged, he had only
taken the part of the BIOLOGICAL which you had tentatively called Mind, and
made it into its own level. My point being that this was merely a semantic
manuver and the idea didn't really change at all. I'm quite happy with the
four levels just the way they are. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for
the feedback.
Rick
At 06:23 PM 11/15/98 EST, you wrote:
>ROGER GIVES FEEDBACK TO RICK ON HIS NEW SORTING OF LEVELS. THEN EXPLAINS THE
>LEVELS ARE DEFINED BY THE COMMON VALUES RATHER THAN BY THE PATTERNS
>THEMSELVES. THEN UNDERMINES HIS OWN ARGUMENT
>
>
>Rick:
>
>I agree completely with where you take this thread, up to the point where you
>suggest that mind is its own level.
>
>RICK:<<
> <The BIOLOGICAL mind. Here these functions are just extensions of the
> Biological and are so called the biological mind. And if these functions
> are perceived to be the "Intellect" then Society would in fact be built on
> Intellect but from the Sociological...>>>>>>>
>
>ROGER WROTE:<<<<<
> "The emergent higher level of Intellectual PoV’s includes philosophy,
>science,
> metaphysics, logic and truth.">>>>>>>>
>
>RICK:<<<<<<<<
> These are the type of things refered to by "Intellectual" and they are not
> just extensions of the BIOLOGICAL MIND. They all require a society for
> their existence. IMHO this is what the confusion is about. Fintan's model
>should read:
> INTELLECT
> SOCIETY
> MIND
> BIOLOGY
> INORGANIC/CHEMICAL
> Its the same as Pirsig except that the "Biological Mind" has been given its
> own level. >>>>>>>>>>>> SNIP!
>
> This opens the entire September bag-of-worms over the number of levels. At
>the time I argued with the side saying that the levels are somewhat arbitrary
>(My Betty Crocker MOQ post argued that other recipes for levels actually make
>more sense ).
>
>Although I might still be in that camp, or kitchen, I have shifted more
toward
>Magnus and Glove who argued that there is a beauty and simplicity to the four
>levels that shouldn't be messed with lightly. Plus Pirsig himself has stated
>that if you change the levels you are no longer talkin' MOQ, you are talkin'
>MOR (metaphysics of Roger or Rick).A new member recently wrote something
>similar about adding a quantum level.
>
>The reason these extra levels are so appealing is that they work out quite
>good at descibing reality. It is tempting to say that photons are on a
>different level than rocks, and that genes are on a different level than
>bears, let alone ecosystems. These "things" ARE on different levels.
>
>The only way for me to resolve this is to separate the levels of the
patterns,
>or the THINGS, from the levels of the VALUES defining the patterns at each
>level. The VALUES of gravity, electromagnetism, spin, momentum, etc. define
>inorgananic things or patterns from the basic quantum level up to the
>classical level of planets and stars.
>
>The next level isn't defined by "things" like genes, animals, plants, wings,
>minds and ecosystems, it is defined by the VALUES of replication, escaping
>inorganic dominance, and consuming other patterns. DNA, pandas, bear brains
>and rainforests are emergent features of the common value system. On the
other
>hand, you can't explain any of these by quantum waveforms -- it doesn't work
>at all!
>
>Slaves, kings, politicians, cities, wars, economics, governments and
religions
>likewise are patterns at widely different levels that can not be described by
>the biological values from which they arise. But they can be described as
>patterns that emerge from the values of biological entities that team up
>individual interests to the benefit of the larger group.
>
>And so on.......
>
>The problem with my argument -- that the levels are set by the values that
>define it, and not by the patterns within it -- is that I can find no support
>for this in any of Pirsig's writings. In other words, this is again a
>metaphysics of Roger. Viscious circle ! Any help or insights Squaddies?
>
>Now, back to your new level of MIND. I think this is part of the biological
>level.
>
>Why? Because it is more beautiful that way!
>
>Roger
>
> "The next great awakening of human intellect may well produce a method of
>understanding the qualitative content of equations...... Today we cannot see
>whether Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality
>-- or whether it does not." (Richard Feynman)
>
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:39 BST