From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 17:12:27 BST
Hi Rick, Sam, all,
> R
> "Can levels get promoted?". Take this quote for example....
>
> PIRSIG (LILA p344)
> "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."
Steve:
I think that a precise description of a pattern of value will make it clear
what level that pattern is on, and I think that a pattern of value doesn't
change types. In the case of trying to classify a human being or language
or a type of government I think you run into trouble because these terms
refer to forests of static patterns rather than specific patterns of value
so they may seem to slip up and down between levels depending at which part
of the elephant you are viewing. This is how we get into fruitless
discussions on this list where one person keeps saying in effect that if you
were only smarter or have read more of the things he has that you would
classify the elephant as a rope or as a tree trunk (social or intellectual
usually) or in whichever way he does when the problem is that the 'elephant'
is not specific enough to be classified as a pattern of value.
> R
> This quote makes me wonder whether this historical intellect predates social
> patterning.
>
> Finding food, detecting danger and defeating enemies is something that every
> animal does. Eons before there were societies, or social patterns, or even
> humans, there were animals finding food, detecting danger and defeating
> enemies. When humans came on the scene, the demands of the environment
> (biological + inorganic patterns) necessitated that if they were to survive,
> like every other species, would have to come up with a way to find food,
> detect danger and defeat enemies. For whatever reason, unlike other animals
> who had evolved extra sharp senses, claws, teeth, horns, etc, etc...for
> humans, it was the brain that evolved to give them the edge needed to make
> the Darwinian cut. And for millions of years it went on like this, packs of
> biological humans using their biological brains to solve biological
> problems... really no different than packs of wolves using their teeth and
> noses to solve the same problems. At this point I would see the existence
> of only 2 levels, Inorganic and biological. The "intellect" is still no
> more than a biological pattern serving a biological purpose. Biology was
> 100% of the equation that determined our behavior and thoughts.
>
> However, eventually there came a point where the packs of humans using their
> intellects to find food, detect danger and defeat enemies began to develop
> social patterns to solve these same problems. That is, the "biological
> intellect" invented social patterns because it figured out that social
> patterning was the best way for humans to find food, detect danger and
> defeat enemies. The more social patterns developed, the less the
> "biological intellect" itself was needed for those original evolutionary
> purposes. The problems of food, danger and enemy were best solved by
> following the social patterns and eventually, there came a point, maybe even
> a single moment in history, where the social patterns became 51% of the
> equation that determined our behavior and thoughts.... I pin that day as the
> birthday of "Society", or "the Giant". And once the Giant was in control it
> didn't take long until social patterns were invented for every conceivable
> purpose and had become so entrenched that intellect had essentially become
> all but obsolete in the quest to find food, detect danger and defeat
> enemies. It was dormant... drowned out by the social force. But more
> importantly, it was now free to 'go off on purposes of its own'. It was at
> this point that the Intellect ascended to the top of the chain, being
> finally "promoted" above society.
>
> I don't know... what do you think?
Steve:
I think these lower biological and social intelligences you speak of are
only analogous to the self-conscious intelligence that evolved later that we
usually think of as intelligence. They are instead the quality-seeking
drive that appears on all levels and for everything and may even define
awareness. Yet, the SOMist in us sees this quality seeking where it doesn't
expect to find it and is tempted to call it intelligence because for the
SOMist quality is only supposed to be in the human mind. In MOQ discussion,
however, I think its best that we restrict the use of intellect to the
manipulation of language-based symbols.
> S
>> Enough for now. I've been emphasizing types of patterns of value for some
>> time and haven't gotten much response. I hope you will consider the
> "types
>> of patterns/types of people" distinction in reading Lila and that you will
>> choose to talk about patterns of value rather than types of people when
>> clarity is needed. I think it would clear up a lot of disagreement in
> this
>> discussion group.
>
> R
> I think I agree with your "pattern" v "people dominated by patterns"
> distinction. People are animals who are sometimes dominated by biological
> patterns, sometimes by social patterns, and sometimes intellectual patterns.
> I like that, I'll think about it some more.
Steve:
Great! Thanks for your time.
Sam, I think this types of patterns/types of people may have implications
for your eudamonia thesis. I think Eudaimonia may only refer to a type of
person rather than a type of pattern of value. Do you have any thoughts?
Funny, I haven't heard and squonking?
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 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 17:28:03 BST