From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Jan 16 2004 - 08:11:52 GMT
Steve, (Wim?) All!
14 Jan. you said:
> I think you would say that the biological level is the value of life.
> Is that right?
Well, I would say that the biological level is LIFE. The "value of"
goes without saying.
> And we all must know by now that the intellectual level
> for you is the value of subjective/objective knowledge distinctions.
Phew, yes! ;-)
> 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).
Hmm, "Identifying types of patterns by the way they are
maintained"? Life and "the way it is maintained" are identical.
> 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.
There's is no life that isn't maintained by DNA, so that's
superfluous.
> Patterns of behavior of humans that are "hard-wired" are
> biological while those that are passed on through copying behavior are
> social.
Hard-wired? This and the "instinctive" term does not add
anything, the reflexes are perception of biological value as I read
the Hot Stove example.
Likewise at the social level where "copying behavior" is
perception of social value. Societies - from the tribal kind and
upwards - are social value patterns, no sociological (behavior) or
physiological complications are necessary.
> The problem I have with "the value of life" as a definition of o
> 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.
You anticipated my response ;-)
> 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?
I still, don't see the need for any "value of value" definition.
"...What is good Steve, And what is not good - Need we ask
anyone to tell us these things?..."
> 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.
Yes, I have questioned the "betterment" from the (actual) level's
point of view. The bacterium is obviously the most stable
organism and as such "better" biology than the mammal
organism that is prone to illness and death, but we are committed
to the greater Quality view and from there the drift from simplicity
towards complexity - based on ONE general value - is what
spawns the next value increment.
> The real difference for us of course is our understandings of the
> intellectual level.
Profound agreement!
> 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.
OK if truth is seen as "objectivity versus subjectivity", because
the social era preceding intellect certainly knew truth vs lies, but
not the said duality.
> 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.
Matter is inorganic value, life is biological value ...etc, but when it
comes to intellect there seems to be no value that constitutes the
level, instead one gets the impression of intellectual patterns
defined as "thoughts", but if you come down to the VALUE of the
true/false I am happy to concede.
> Do you prefer "the value of S/O distinctions" to "the value of truth"
> for defining intellect?
We agree. Intellect is the value of the true/false
(objective/subjective) distinction.
> 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?
Need we ask ......etcetera?
Sincerely
Bo
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 : Fri Jan 16 2004 - 08:13:36 GMT