From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2003 - 00:28:16 GMT
Platt, DMB, Wim, all
Platt said:
> Anyway, if the intellectual level is, as you say, the level of thinking
> about thinking...
I think DMB has been saying that the intellectual level is not defined as
"thinking about thinking" but rather that it certainly includes "thinking
about thinking." It may have been me that misinterpreted it as a
definition.
I think we all agree on the point that "thinking about thinking" must be
included as intellectual, or am I wrong? Since I struggle so much to
understand the levels, I was glad to be able to feel certain that this
particular type of thinking and also to agree that thinking may be too broad
a term to define the intellectual level.
Wims' definition of "copied rationale" has been useful to me as well. But
it has also had some problems for me. For example, if I decide to sport a
bare mid-riff in a conscious attempt to try to look like Brittany Spears,
have I copied a rationale?
Also, Wim's definition does not seem to include "thinking about thinking" (I
could be wrong), which I think needs to be part of a definition of the
intellectual level. For me, Wim's idea of "copied rationale" still fits in
as well in that the products of "thinking about thinking" are rationales,
which are later copied without thinking about thinking. But where did these
rationales come from? (Also, Wim, in your definition of the social level
defined as "unconscious copying of behavior", where do the originals of the
copied behaviors come from?)
In the case of the scientific method, scientists no longer think about
whether or not it is a good method. The scientific method is called upon as
a rationale for approaching a problem in a certain way which is copied from
other scientists who came before or as defense of the truth of a particular
result obtained through the scientific process.
A lot of thinking about thinking was going on when scientists and
philosophers were interested in defining and defending the method itself,
but now the method has a static latch as a rationale.
Small "d" democracy is used as a rationale for making decisions. This
rationale is called upon without thinking about thinking. It is a rationale
that has a static latch in society. We have learned to accept democracy as
fair and scientific results as true without thinking about our thinking,
though I think democracy could be thought of as a product of "thinking about
thinking" and thus is an intellectual pattern. On the other hand, the
pattern of deciding based on majority opinion may have evolved in some
other way (and probably was. It seems like a social improvement on "might
makes right" and is probably social.)
In the Brittany Spears example, I certainly haven't copied the result of
someone else's "thinking about thinking" so the pattern of trying to dress
like Brittany Spears must be social.
In short, I think it may be useful to think of Wim's copies rationales as
copied products of "thinking about thinking."
Answers, comments, and corrections appreciated,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Mon Mar 03 2003 - 00:28:12 GMT