From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 16:41:38 BST
Hi Wim,
Thank you for continuing to take a serious interest in my thesis. It is interesting to see how far
it holds up!
> I suppose that you're willing to define the 3rd level as patterns of value
> maintained (latched) by unconscious copying of behavior.
I think that I need to be a little more careful here. I would not wish to *define* the 3rd level in
this way. I would define the third level by reference to the 'field of values' within which patterns
operate; in other words, at the inorganic level they are the values described by laws of physics
(allow inorganic patterns to flourish); at the organic level the values described by natural
selection (allow organic patterns to flourish); at the third level I would say the values are those
which allow any particular society to function and flourish. We can discuss what those might be, and
whether we can point out any equivalent descriptive 'laws'. As for 'unconscious copying of
behaviour', I think I would be happier saying that this is a common feature of the patterns which we
see being maintained at the third level. I'm not sure I would want to go so far as to say it is the
'definition' of the third level. (For me).
> Your definition of the 4th level in comparable terms would than be: patterns
> of value maintained (latched) by autonomous individuals.
I think that, along the lines of the above, I would want to define the fourth level as the values
described by the "laws of eudaimonia" (!), in other words, those which allow a particular autonomous
individual to flourish.
> Autonomy requires having achieved a sufficient level of 'Eudaimonia' ...
I think that autonomy requires self-awareness. To talk about it being a 'sufficient level of
eudaimonia' is, I think, not specific enough (although I'm sure self-awareness is a component part
of eudaimonia). Otherwise yes.
> To the extent that 4th level patterns of values come first and only after
> that autonomous individuals 'instantiating them' (whatever that may mean;
> it's not in my dictionary), you can't define 4th level patterns of values
> and the 4th level by referring to autonomous individuals or their choices.
The scale of value is not the same as the choosing unit; I see that as a repeatable truth all the
way through the MoQ. I see 'eudaimonia' as equivalent to physics or natural selection (in levels one
and two) and the autonomous individual as equivalent to atoms/molecules and DNA. (Perhaps
'responding unit' would be clearer than 'choosing unit'? - in other words, there is a scale of value
at each level, and there is something - a static latch - which can respond to that scale of value.)
BTW your dictionary is incomplete. Mine has "instantiate, vb, tr, to represent by an instance".
> Your 4th level patterns of value must have some sort of independent
> existence from autonomous individuals...
No more and no less than the other levels do. I see the levels as useful intellectual patterns; I am
agnostic about their ontological status.
> If 4th level patterns of value are consciously created patterns of activity
....Autonomy requires
> the ability to act out of line with 3rd level patterns, but that doesn't
> rule out conscious action in line with them.
I think you've answered your own objection here (that is, I agree that "Autonomy requires the
ability to act out of line with 3rd level patterns, but that doesn't rule out conscious action in
line with them.")
> But what about conscious action to surrender to (not group choices, but)
> divine guidance? Does doing God's will imply enhancement of 'human
> flourishing'???
For a particular autonomous individual, DQ = God's will. The product of that choice (for DQ) will be
eudaimonic static latching, primarily virtues of one sort or another. So yes, I would say that doing
God's will implies enhancement of human flourishing (John 10.10b)
> So you may not like either my rephrasing of your definition of level 4.... Could you rephrase your
> arguments against my definition (or refer me back to them)?
I don't think we had an extensive discussion of your level 4; my comments were tacked on to the end
of some comments about level 3 (your version). But if you'll remind me (from your database) of where
to find the best example of your description of levels 3 and 4, I shall try and return the
compliment of sustained attention that you are paying to my ideas.
> I'm afraid that your 'further thoughts' only confirm my idea that the 3rd
> and 4th level in your version of the MoQ are much less separate than the 1st
> and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd level.
Feel free to expand on why.
> You wrote:
> 'level 3 patterns that dominate have in turn been modified due to level 4
> innovations or guidance'
> But can you imagine 1st level patterns of value (that can be described by
> the laws of physics) being modified by 2nd level innovations or guidance??
Yes: how about the soil around a tree? Inorganic material which is manipulated to further the
interests of the organism doing the manipulation. Or: the blood system in a mammal. Or: particular
minerals which are used to give colour to flowers. The minerals remain the same, but without the
organic pattern manipulating them, they would never have ended up doing what they are now doing. In
the same way, there are myriad ways in which society is structured around (for the sake of argument)
intellectual ideas, which remain social patterns, yet would never have come into existence without
the fourth level input.
> I don't see agriculture change 2nd level patterns of value however... A wild potato and a potato
that is
> bred to grow larger and more nutritious tubers follow the same 2nd level
> patterns of value, just as a snowflake and an airplane follow the same 1st
> level pattern of value (gravitation), despite appearances to the contrary.
Yet you would not get wild potatoes growing in neat, easily farmed rows without the intervention of
a higher level. Clearly a potato is still a potato (but what about GM?), the point is the wider one
that you cannot adequately describe a field of potatoes at harvest time purely be reference to level
2 description. IMHO anyway.
> I still detect an inconsistency between your:
> 'from the beginning of history all human beings participate to some extent
> in level 4'
> and
> 'Level 4 has ... origins are fairly obscure (Homer?)'.
> Didn't history start far before Homer?
The first is a paraphrase of a point from Pirsig (which you quote in your response). There may be an
inconsistency here, my thoughts are not clear-cut on this point - hence my question marks, which are
meant to signify the exploratory nature of my comment. When would you say history started?
> It seems impossible to me that what you refer to as 'level 3 complexity...can be covered by
'unconscious
> copying of behavior patterns'. Such phenomena require consciously motivated
> action, too.
As said above, I'd be happy to leave that sort of definition ie relying on conscious/non conscious
copying etc to one side. I think all those examples can be described by reference to level 3 static
patterns and DQ.
> 'The development of the autonomous "self"' is by no means a discrete break... They
> must have functioned at the same (4th) level or the supposedly lower-level
> individuals would not have known what the others were talking about.
I think that it is just as discrete as the development of the other levels. That there is a history
to the development I see as analogous to the theory of 'punctuated equilibrium', in other words, a
long period of relative stasis, followed by dynamic breakthrough, positive feedback, and the
development of a new species (or level). DNA did not come into existence instantaneously (there were
precursor and possibly alternative replicating mechanisms) and there was a period of time when there
was creative interaction before one pattern dominated. Similarly, the passing on of material culture
(if that is where the division between level 2 and level 3 is drawn, I'm not sure about that) is
something not restricted to humans - it has been observed in other great apes, for example, and I
wouldn't be surprised if it existed in other species too. It's just that, in concert with other
organic features, eg opposable thumb, language, availability of fresh fish, the human species was
able to 'take off' into something separate.
> You are quite unclear about what is the first static latch of your 4th
> level. Is it the 'autonomous individual' itself? but you wrote that it
> developed over time (in other words: autonomy is a matter of degree). Or is
> it 'rhetoric' that fosters the autonomous 'self'?
I'm sorry it's unclear (for all its faults, I think the thesis as a whole is clearer than the
'official' fourth level!). It is still being worked out, of course, and my views might change in the
light of comments. So perhaps the *first* static latch is self-awareness, ie the light of
enlightenment, the perception of a self which is able to respond to DQ and generate eudaimonic
static latches as a result (so the responses to value are no longer determined by level 3 values). I
think that needs further work, but that's the direction I would expect to go in. I do think that
autonomy is a matter of degree (there can be more or less) but there may still be a discrete break
to start it off. I think 'rhetoric' - ie what the Sophists were teaching - is what fosters that
autonomy.
> I agree that there is a 'jump' to a higher level of consciousness when an
> individual starts to assess a set of values that in a sense formed him....
> Why not simply see them all as subdistinctions within the
> 4th level?
As I understood David's exposition, the Wilber levels span level 3 and level 4? In any case, I see a
discrete difference (self-awareness?) between a level 3 pattern and a level 4 pattern. The questions
that intrigue me at the moment are whether there is a conscious self in level 3. I think there is
(and I think there is probably 'thinking' at level 3 too); the difference in level 4 is that those
two things come into creative combination, ie self-consciousness (putting fig leaves on in the
garden?).
> If you would concede that, we could go on to discuss the relative advantages
> and disadvantages of alternative ways of subdividing the 4th level:
I'm happy with the idea of distinctions within the fourth level. I don't see the eudaimonic scale as
equivalent to one of them though.
Cheers.
Sam
(I had to trim down some of your quotations to get the post accepted by the site)
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 Jun 09 2003 - 16:41:38 BST