From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 10:50:44 BST
Hi Sam
[Sam:]
To my mind, a person is a stable pattern of values existing at the
fourth level, an 'autonomous
individual' - ie one in whom there resides an independent response to
Quality (DQ) which is not
mediated through the previously existing static forms (the social level
static latches).
[Paul:]
I think that a "person", in MOQ terms, is an inorganic pattern of stable
quantum probabilities, organised by DNA into a biological body valuing
survival and reproduction, many social relationships valuing status,
authority, and social stability, a collection of structured concepts and
ideas valuing a coherent conceptual organisation, explanation and
prediction of experience and with a [Dynamic] capability to change for
the better.
However, as each higher level expresses increasingly diverse
preferences, we can say that personality emerges more clearly in the
social and intellectual levels than at the biological and inorganic
[it's hard to imagine a carbon atom with personality, although I believe
some quarks are charming ;-)]. So I do have some sympathy for your
assertion.
[Sam:]
It is
precisely the ability to respond directly to Quality, and therefore not
to be 'controlled' - ie
repeating the static social norms - which marks out the change in level
from social to level 4. As
you know, I think the best description for these new values is
'eudaimonic'.
[Paul:]
If you want to say "respond" then I think it is the symbols which are
responding to Dynamic Quality. However, I see it more as static patterns
emerging from Dynamic Quality where change is the end of one pattern and
the beginning of a new one.
[Sam:]
This stable pattern of values is the 'agent' around which the
'manipulation of symbols, standing for
patterns of experience' coheres. I still don't understand how it is
possible for there to be any
stability on the fourth level unless there is some equivalent to an
'agent' around which the
intellectual symbols (and everything else) can coalesce.
[Paul:]
I think the "stability and coherence" is simply in the existence of
patterns themselves, indeed it may be a good definition of "pattern"?
However, I can see your point; in fact this is the trouble I had back in
May in the "what is a living being?" thread.
[Sam:]
It seems to run into the same problems as
the theory of gravity just sitting around waiting for someone to
discover it from ZMM.
[Paul:]
I don't see how?
[Sam:]
In other
words, I don't accept that the symbols have a capacity to respond to
Quality that is independent of
an agent, ie the stable pattern of fourth level value which I call the
autonomous individual. I
think the only way that symbols can react to Quality is through the
mediation of that individual, ie
that the role of that individual is precisely to say which symbols, and
which patterns and
arrangements of symbols, have Quality, and which do not. I think both
you and Pirsig imply that the
symbols have an independent relationship to Quality, which doesn't
involve the mediation of a
personal intelligence, and I don't understand how that can happen.
[Paul:]
I think that the relationship is static patterns emerging from Dynamic
Quality, and perhaps the static patterns, as part of the process of
organising and explaining experience, organise themselves around a
"personal intelligence" which is given the symbol of "I".
[Sam:]
Now this stable pattern of values, the autonomous individual or
'person', is aware of and able to
respond to DQ. And I understand the mystical path to be a way of
developing that pattern, that
person, in a way which can radically undermine the sense of ultimacy
which is otherwise experienced
by such a person. In other words, I think the 'dissolving' of identity,
which is referred to in the
great religious traditions, in various ways, is the transition between
the fourth level pattern of
values and DQ. Whereas I think that you (and Pirsig) see this
dissolution of personality as being
the transition between a level 3 stable pattern of values (the 'social
self', or possibly the ego)
and the realm of level 4. Is that fair?
[Paul:]
No :-) I think "personality" refers to both social and intellectual
patterns.
[Sam:]
So, from my point of view, there is no necessary
contradiction between my assertion of the reality of personal agency on
level 4, and your Buddhist
teaching (or Meister Eckhart's teaching etc) about the dissolution of
the self. We just place that
dissolution at different points on the scale.
[Paul:]
I think we agree on this point.
[Sam:]
Similarly, with respect to language. I interpret Wittgenstein's point
about there not being
something which thinks (which is how I interpret your point about the
weather) through a MoQian
lens. In other words, I think it is true and accurate to say that there
is no 'thing' - understood
in SOM terms as a scientifically describable entity - which corresponds
to the mind. However I do
think that there is a stable pattern of values - a person in all their
infinite variety and
stability, of habits, language, culture and personality - which is both
a source of independent
judgement and open to dynamic evolution at a higher level than that of
society, which can in fact go
off on purposes of its own. This is an area where I think MoQ language
can offer a better way of
understanding our existence than (some) Wittgenstein.
[Paul:]
I think we're pretty much in agreement here as well.
[Sam:]
(By the way, I think that what Wittgenstein
calls a 'form of life' corresponds quite nicely with 'social pattern of
value' - but that depends
upon seeing language as something which functions at the level of
society, which I know you don't
accept).
[Paul:]
Actually, my views have changed a little here and I'm still considering
language. As a starting point, I don't think language is confined to one
level.
[Sam:]
So I agree that it is the intellectual patterns which have Sam, ie that
Sam is simply one example of
an agglomeration of intellectual patterns of value (or, eudaimonic
patterns of value, of which the
intellect is one part) - but I think that the intellectual patterns
don't have any independent
access to Quality, other than through autonomous individual him or
herself.
[Paul:]
Again, I think the "individual" is a differentiation that comes after
intellectual patterns and is not the enabler of them.
[Sam:]
Anyhow, that's a fuller response. I'm sure we will still disagree, but I
wanted to point out some
areas of sympathy as well as the disagreement.
[Paul:]
Thanks Sam, I enjoy our discussions.
[Sam:]
By the way, what do you think of the concept of 'meme'? That seems quite
similar to your point of
view about intellect.
[Paul:]
"<philosophy> /meem/ [By analogy with "gene"] Richard Dawkins's
term for an idea considered as a replicator, especially with
the connotation that memes parasitise people into propagating
them much as viruses do."
Very good!
"Memes can be considered the unit of cultural evolution. Ideas
can evolve in a way analogous to biological evolution. Some
ideas survive better than others; ideas can mutate through,
for example, misunderstandings; and two ideas can recombine to
produce a new idea involving elements of each parent idea."
"Some ideas survive better than others" Excellent!
"Use of the term connotes acceptance of the idea that in humans
(and presumably other tool- and language-using sophonts)
cultural evolution by selection of adaptive ideas has become
more important than biological evolution by selection of
hereditary traits."
Sounds pretty good.
Cheers
Paul
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 Oct 07 2003 - 10:52:27 BST