From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Thu Jan 15 2004 - 00:27:13 GMT
Hi Bo, (Wim)
Steve said:
>> The biggest underlying difference to our understandings of the levels
>> may be that I see the levels as types of static patterns where you
>> want to say that a level itself is "the value of X." We are
>> fundamentally talking about very different things. Unfortunately we
>> may just keep talking past one another.
>
Bo said:
> Yes, it has started to dawn on me that there must be something
> ultra-fundamental that makes for this disagreement over the
> intellectual level.
> Your pointing to the the (nature of the) levels as the key may be
> where the answer lies ...had I just understood your evaluation of
> our difference. You say that you see "...the levels as types of
> static patterns" while I "...want to say that a level itself is the
> value of X".
I think you would say that the biological level is the value of life. Is
that right? And we all must know by now that the intellectual level for you
is the value of subjective/objective knowledge distinctions.
When I say that I understand the levels as types of patterns of value, I
mean that I emphasize inferring value from patterns of experience. I also
mean that I find a lot of value in Wim's idea of identifying types of
patterns by the way they are maintained (or "latched" to use Pirsig's term).
Bo said:
>Would you provide an example, how this applies to
> the biological level for instance.
I follow Wim in recognizing biological patterns as those maintained by DNA.
Patterns of behavior of humans that are "hard-wired" are biological while
those that are passed on through copying behavior are social.
The problem I have with "the value of life" as a definition of the
biological level is that I don't find such a definition useful for
identifying biological patterns. But for the biological level, I doubt we
would disagree on our categorization. I wouldn't be surprised if you
actually used the "maintained by DNA" idea to categorize biological patterns
despite your definition of the value of life. Is this so, or do you
actually get mileage out of "the value of life" in deciding what sort of
pattern you are dealing with?
A problem that Paul pointed out to you previously is that defining each
level as one value precludes making judgments of better/worse biological
patterns. If there is only "the value of life" then a lion is no better
than an amoeba.
The real difference for us of course is our understandings of the
intellectual level.
I agree with Paul that if you are going to use "the value of X" definitions,
"the value of truth" would be a much better way of describing intellectual
value. Though Wim suggests that intellectual patterns are those maintained
through copying rationales for behavior, I actually tend to use that idea to
categorize intellectual patterns, i.e., If this is something that can be
judged on a true/false sort of scale it is an intellectual pattern.
Do you prefer "the value of S/O distinctions" to "the value of truth" for
defining intellect?
What do you suggest for the social and inorganic level? The value of status
for social value? The value of deterministic order over chaos for
inorganic?
Regards,
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 : Thu Jan 15 2004 - 00:26:53 GMT