From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 05:24:14 BST
Hi Platt, Sam, DMB, Paul, all
Platt
> Yes. Without mind there is no society as Pirsig defines society and mind.
>
Sam:
>> So there was
>> never a significant period of time when there were only level 3 values?
>
Platt:
> Right. The distinction is a matter of dominance. The social level was
> dominated by mythical thinking (as it still is in parts of the world
> today.) The intellectual level is dominated by rational thinking which, in
> turn, is dominated by the S/O intellectual pattern which dismisses values
> as irrational. The MoQ, by contrast, posits values as objective fact . . .
> the primary fact of experience to be precise, prior to all divisions that
> symbol-dependent intellect requires.
Steve:
Wow. It is really surprising to me that you say that the social level has
no existence independent of the intellectual level. Then in what sense is
the intellectual level a higher level of evolution than the social level?
My understanding of the levels is as an evolutionary hierarchy. Higher
levels are "higher" (higher quality) and can be identified as such because
they are built upon the lower levels. I had assumed that there is no
intellect without society which puts intellect at a higher level whereas you
seem to be saying the reverse.
Platt:
>
> If you agree that a human society requires a culture to exist, i.e., a
> common language and world outlook, then the following quote from Pirsig
> backs my view that society and intellect arose simultaneously.
Steve:
I don't agree that a society requires a culture. A culture is a way of
talking about a society and the collection of intellectual values that are
associated with that society.
Platt:
>
> "For precision I think I would say that a culture contains social and
> intellectual values, but not biological or inorganic." Note 28, Lila's
> Child
>
> If you add the following and I think the evidence is clear:
>
> "The intellect's evolutionary purpose has never been to discover an
> ultimate meaning of the universe. That Is a relatively recent fad. Its
> historical purpose has been to help a society find food, detect danger,
> and defeat enemies." (24)
>
> All necessary for the social level to become viable.
>
> But, I could be wrong.
Steve:
I really think that you are wrong this time. I don't agree that a society
requires a culture to exist. A culture is a way of talking about a
particular society that applies only once the intellectual level comes into
being.
A society only requires the human capacity for one homo sapiens to learn
from another. Behavior that is copied from one to another is not
genetically hardwired and so does not represent a biological pattern but
rather a social one. Pirsig painted a picture of early homo sapiens' lives
being ruled by rituals of copied behavior though they had no capacity to
reason why they were doing what they did. Such copied behaviors flourished
for quite a long time before humans evolved to the point where they could
tell you why they were doing what the did or think that if they sharpen a
stick or a stone it could be used later for killing animals which would in
turn bring them food. Humans used such tools presumably for a long time
when such behavior was not motivated by reasoning but rather simply behavior
that was copied from one to another chosen on the basis of undefined quality
(perhaps with a mental association of killing and fulfilling biological
needs but not a reasoned cause and effect chain of events held in the mind
that would qualify as thinking--actual manipulation of symbols). Such a
rationale for behavior would represent the birth of the intellectual level.
It seems that two different camps are becoming clear in this discussion. As
I see it, Some seem to view the levels as three types of thinking--people
can be motivated by biological urges and their thinking may be about
fulfilling such urges (e.g. Lila). Someone's thinking can be dominated by
social values like Rigel who uses his mind to argue for the preservation of
traditional social morals. Or one can be dominated by intellectual values
like Phaedrus. These folks seem to see the birth of the intellectual level
as when the first person became dominated by intellectual values rather than
when the first intellectual pattern could be inferred.
There is value in identifying the motivation behind thinking, but whether a
given person tends to favor a particular type of value is a different
question than identifying a particular pattern of value itself and
categorizing it as inorganic, biological, social, or intellectual. I think
the two camps are talking past one another. DMB for example sees different
types of thinking while others are talking about thinking itself. Yes,
reasoning can be directed towards upholding biological, social, or
intellectual values, and by hearing someone else's reasons for behavior or
arguments we can discern whether biological, social, or intellectual values
have a stronger influence, but by Pirsig's definition, to think is to follow
an intellectual pattern of value regardless of what the person hopes to
achieve with this thinking.
I think it's a shame that Wim is away for this discussion, because I think
his descriptions of social and intellectual patterns give obviously needed
clarity to distinguishing the social and intellectual levels. The first
thought was not "me/not me" but was a rationale for behavior. It was a
reason that probably wasn't very logical by today's standards. It was born
in asking "why?"
I would also suggest that MOQers think about the use of the word "pattern."
I think some of the confusion in many of our discussions may be the result
of losing the point of the word "pattern" in pov. Why not simply "value"
instead of "pattern of value"? What is a pattern? How can we recognize
different types of patterns?
Doesn't a pattern require a mind to recognize/create it? That's why the MOQ
itself must be considered an intellectual pattern of value. We recognize
specific types of values by becoming aware of patterns and classifying those
patterns. I don't think values can be categorized directly, hence leaving
Quality undefined. The most we can give are tautological definitions such
as that social value is the kind that holds societies together and
biological value is the kind that holds life together or intellectual value
is the kind that holds ideas together or inorganic value is the kind that
holds substances together. So when talking about the social level and the
intellectual level, it is important to keep in mind that what we hope to
categorize are patterns not objects or thoughts or even values. When we
categorize gravity as an inorganic pattern it is based on experiencing the
pattern of objects tending to move downward when separated from the ground.
The value of preference for moving toward the ground is inferred from the
observed pattern. It can be experienced but I don't think that is what we
mean by pattern of value. If we stick to patterns of value instead of
categorizing values themselves we may avoid some trouble.
I think this idea of not being able to categorize value directly is why Paul
suggested talking about social patterns in terms of social institutions. It
is in observing the patterned behavior within such institutions that social
values seem most tangible. Social and intellectual descriptions need to
refer to distinctly different types of *patterns* of experience and thinking
about how we can recognize such patterns will help us understand the
underlying values while value itself is left undefined and uncategorized.
Thanks,
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 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 05:23:56 BST