From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Wed Feb 05 2003 - 22:19:52 GMT
Dear Platt,
You wrote 30 Jan 2003 13:48:12 -0500:
'IMO it isn't necessary for a pattern to last for a specific length of time
in order to be defined as a stable pattern, especially at the intellectual
level where, being the last to evolve, it is the most volatile. But those
"sets of ideas" your refer to are precisely what I mean by a stable
intellectual pattern independent of the approval of others. A review of your
posts over time will reveal a very stable set of ideas that could be easily
described as Wim's intellectual pattern, just as a review of my posts would
show the same. In fact, hasn't this site proven just how difficult it is to
change anyone's personal, largely unspoken pattern of intellectual values?'
It IS necessary for a pattern (repetitive experience) to last for SOME time
in order to be RECOGNIZED as a pattern. This time it not specific. It
depends on the sensitivity of the one experiencing the pattern.
We CAN interpret specific, individual 'things' to be patterns of value.
- The bike which I happen to see in my shed every time I go and get it there
to go shopping (until it is stolen), can be interpreted as a pattern of
value.
- The morning mood of my wife, which I experience most mornings as rather
unpleasant replies if I say too much to her, can too.
- The idea that I may start a 'message to America' project, which re-appears
at irregular intervals in my head and which (until very recently) I never
told anybody about, too.
Doing so is not consistent with calling patterns of value more volatile when
they belong to a higher level. The shortest living recognizable 'things'
typically belong to the inorganic level: some of the elementary particles
(e.g. the 'pion' with a lifetime of 26 nanoseconds, which is a member of the
'meson' family of elementary particles of which all other members decay even
faster).
Doing so doesn't bring us much advantages compared to Subject-Object
Thinking. It is very hard to categorize this type of patterns of value.
- Is a bike an inorganic pattern of value (being constructed of solid dead
matter)? Or is it a biological pattern of value (providing a much more
comfortable way of travelling than walking)? Or is it a social pattern of
value (possession of -on average- 1,1 bike per head of the population being
a cultural characteristic of the Dutch)? Or is it an intellectual pattern of
value (a symbol saying 'I care about the environment', which I emphasize by
having
two stickers on my foldable bike saying 'one car less')?
- Is my wife's morning mood a biological or a social pattern of value?
(Please tell me!!!)
Despite Pirsig doing so in 'Lila', I propose to reserve the term 'pattern of
value' for phenomena that are not linked to specific, individual 'things',
but that -if we need to relate them to 'things' (because the words we need
to describe them denote 'things')- have 'things' as elements.
Words we use can of course often denote BOTH a 'thing' AND a phenomenon with
other (smaller) things as elements. If we are discussing in the context of a
MoQ discussion group we should sometimes explicitly state (if only for
newcomers) that we refer to the last type of phenomenon and presume that
others do so too, even if they don't do so explicitly. (IF we agree on my
proposal, that is.)
So if we speak about a 'glass of water', we refer to the pattern of value
HOLDING ITS MOLECULES TOGETHER, not about a 'thing' that can quench my
thirst.
If we speak about a 'nation', we refer to the pattern of value HOLDING ITS
CITIZENS TOGETHER (making them feel and behave like 'belonging'), not about
a 'subject' that can choose to act in a specific way (like
defending itself against 'biology') and not about an 'object' which we (from
an 'intellectual' point of view) can change at will.
Such 'patterns of value', repetitive experiences with 'things' as elements,
are much easier to categorize. We can ask why these elements form and
re-form or maintain this repetition. The mechanism explaining that
repetition is different for each level.
Back to the question whether an intellectual pattern of value, e.g. a 'set
of ideas' (that are repeatedly expressed in some medium), requires
'conscious motivation/justification of actions in a way that is
acceptable to others', as I wrote.
I agree that there are intellectual patterns of value whose existence is
independent of the approval of others. An example is indeed ideas ('things')
in my head which are never expressed to others and which nevertheless form
and re-form combinations that -despite small differences over time- form a
recognizable 'set of ideas' (the pattern).
Another example is a set of symbols (a text) on a piece of paper
that -depending on the circumstances of storage- can stay readable and
understandable for centuries. The interpretation of the text can differ a
bit over time and between different readers, but the pattern of symbolized
meanings stays largely the same and exists independently from the readers.
I already expressed this agreement 29 Jan 2003 23:35:59 +0100 when I wrote:
'I don't exclude the possibility of sets of ideas that keep popping up in my
[head] without being consciously associated with social interaction'
I want to stress first (again) however, that these intellectual patterns of
value that are independent of the approval of others are relatively
unimportant.
You wrote 23 Jan 2003 08:52:28 -0500:
'when you think about all that's going on in the world, 90 percent of it is
"hidden" within the confines of each individual's brain. Human life is like
an iceberg. Only a small portion of ideas people have are ever communicated
to others.'
I don't know if that 90% is correct (or how to measure it), but even if it
is, the 10% that IS communicated obviously stands a much better chance of
being copied (either or not in adapted form) by others and thus becoming a
pattern of values on a larger scale, involving 'symbols created in the brain
that stand for patterns of experience' of a group of people. It is these
larger scale intellectual patterns of value (those in which the 'elements'
are ideas shared by a relatively large group of people) that can 'offer
freedom to the next lower level', to social patterns of value, and 'help a
society find food, detect danger and defeat enemies'. An intellectual
pattern of value may start with an individual, but it only becomes an
important (and in a sense 'meaningful') pattern of value, when it is shared
by a group. They will only reach this status of being shared by a group when
they are acceptable to others.
But you are right, intellectual patterns of value that are unacceptable to
others DO exist and thus must be covered by my description of them to be
acceptable to you. (-;
So let's see if intellectual patterns of value that are 'independent of the
approval of others' really can't be covered by my description that they are
'being maintained/latched by conscious motivation/justification of actions
in a way that is acceptable to others'.
I think there are two reasons why they CAN be covered by that description:
1) The description doesn't require that every intellectual pattern of value
has an 'individual' latch on (is separately maintained by) its practical
value for motivating/justifying actions (against what social patterns of
value require). The whole point of 'going off on purposes of its own' to the
extent that they get more sophisticated ('Lila' chapter 12) means that their
practical value becomes less and less important. It is only their last
defense when they are threatened.
The description therefore doesn't require either that every intellectual
pattern of value is individually accepted by others as valid
motivation/justification for actions.
2) The description doesn't state that a pattern of value itself (that which
'holds ideas/symbols together') should be acceptable to others as
motivation/justification for actions (when it is threatened and needs its
'latch'), but only that THE WAY IN WHICH it motivates/justifies actions is
acceptable.
The description DOES require that an intellectual pattern of value (the way
in which repetitive experience is generated, its 'maintenance mechanism' or
'latch') would be unthinkable if -in a less sophisticated phase of its
development- it would not have a role in motivating/justifying actions.
A set of ideas in my head which is never expressed to others is maintained
by my 'internal chattering', which is needed to generate in some situations
motivations/justifications for my actions. It doesn't require social
interaction, but it DOES require inner simulation of social interaction.
This 'hidden part of what's going on in the world' (the insides of our
brains) could only come into being (historically and when growing) because
of social interaction and because of its contribution to success in this
social interaction.
A text on paper that is stored for centuries without being read only stays
an intellectual pattern of value as long as the language in which it is
written is being used. The way in which the text stands for experience of
people, its system of codifying (in other words: its language), should still
be acceptable/understandable to at least some people. Otherwise it is just
decoration (like Arab script is to me).
You also wrote:
'even if you and I and Pirsig all agree that conservatism isn't a social
pattern of value (thereby establishing an intellectual value pattern with
"others"), David's pattern is still viable and valid as far as he is
concerned. As soon as you adopt the premise that "others" determine stable
intellectual patterns, you open yourself up to the "Emperor's New Clothes"
objection.'
I hope to have made clear that 'intellectual patterns of value are
determined by "others"' is not what I meant with 'intellectual patterns of
value are maintained/latched by conscious motivation/justification of
actions in a way that is acceptable to others'.
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 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 05 2003 - 22:20:22 GMT