From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Sat Apr 24 2004 - 23:52:04 BST
>
Hi Platt,
I said:
>> I do think clarity can be gained by dropping the language of
>> "being on" a level and talk about people's dominance in favor of
>> discussing
>> the specific patterns of value in question especially when there is
>> disagreement as to leveling since thinking about dominance is
>> secondary to
>> thinking about the patterns themselves.
>
You said:
> This is the nub of our disagreement. IMO, in thinking about the levels,
> the dominance of the patterns in question is primary. There are plenty
> of
> thinking people on the social level, e.g., Muslim fundamentalists
> manufacturing bombs. To know what level dominates helps one relate
> appropriately to a group or an individual. Example: generally
> speaking, no
> matter what radical feminists say, women are more concerned with social
> patterns (relationships) than men.
>
>> One other problem with talking about dominance is that it is only a
>> relative term. We can only say that one person is more dominated by
>> one type of pattern than another person, not that one person is
>> dominated by one type of pattern than another type of pattern. To
>> simply say that one specific person is dominated by the social level
>> doesn't seem right to me, since there is no way to say whether some
>> inorganic pattern like gravity is more influential than some social
>> pattern like shaking hands or some intellectual pattern like logical
>> deduction or some biological pattern like breathing.
>
> Do you think it wrong to say Muslim fundamentalists are dominated by
> religious social patterns?
Not really. I agree that the MOQ levels help us to understand people.
My point was that dominance can't be primary because dominance is
relative. Do you see my point that there is no way to say whether a
person is more dominated by inorganic patterns or biological patterns
than social patterns? How could we know whether gravity or breathing
are more or less influential that some social patterns? (Actually, I
guess I would say that inorganic patterns are more dominant than
biological patterns which are more dominant than social patterns which
are more dominant than intellectual patterns for every single person.)
What I mean when I say that Muslim fundamentalists (or any kind of
fundamentalists) are dominated by social patterns is that they are more
dominated by social patterns that most other Americans are.
>> I'm saying that intellectual patterns are patterns of thinking. You
>> say they are patterns of what? People thinking?
>
> I'm also saying intellectual patterns are patterns of thinking. The
> intellectual level is dominated by individuals who value the patterns
> of
> their independent thoughts more than unthinking conformity to social
> patterns. That's another reason why I think a better name for the
> intellectual level would be the Individual Level.
The intellectual level is not dominated by individuals since
individuals are identified or defined by the patterns that they
participate in. (Lila doesn't have Quality. Quality has Lila.)
However, the intellectual level is built on the social level as every
level is built upon the levels below, but to call the intellectual
level the individual level since it is built on individual human beings
would be like calling the social level the animal level since it is
built upon animals (homo sapiens) and calling the biological level the
molecular level since it built on molecules.
>
>> Would you say, individual patterns are patterns of thought and action
>> of
>> people when they are behaving and thinking as individuals?
>
> Could you rephrase the question?
>
I was trying to guess what your definition of individual patterns would
be.
>
>> But I'm not labeling people with the levels at all. That's what I'm
>> saying we shouldn't be doing with the levels.
>
> Of what moral use are the levels unless we relate them to people?
By all means relate the levels to types of people. I'm just saying
that types of people is not what the levels are. They are, rather,
types of patterns of value.
>
>> I have no problem thinking of myself as a forest of patterns of value
>> in
>> relationship with dynamic quality.
>
> I wonder if that's how your family thinks of you. I hope not.:-) I'm
> being
> facetious. If you want to think of yourself that way, that's fine. But
> consider: If you are combination of patterns at different levels, how
> can
> the levels be discrete, i.e., unrelated to one another?
The levels are related to one another as each higher level pattern is
built upon lower level patterns.
>
>> In the MOQ, reality is understood in
>> terms of patterns rather than subjects and objects. It sounds like
>> you are
>> voicing a fundamental disagreement with the MOQ. Or maybe we are
>> talking
>> past one another because of our different uses of the word pattern.
>> All I'm
>> talking about when I say the word 'pattern' are structures of
>> perception,
>> not conforming cookie cutter people.
>
> Patterns are 'structures of perception?' Interesting. Please elaborate.
>
That is the most appropriate dictionary definition I could find. I
imagine Pirsig would be even more irritated in being asked what a
pattern is than he was about being asked what intellect is.
I looked it up at dictionary.com, and I got the following:
"pat·tern
n.
1. a. A model or original used as an archetype.
b. A person or thing considered worthy of imitation.
2. A plan, diagram, or model to be followed in making things: a
dress pattern. See Synonyms at ideal.
3. A representative sample; a specimen.
4. a. An artistic or decorative design: a paisley pattern. See
Synonyms at figure.
b. A design of natural or accidental origin: patterns of bird
formations.
5. A consistent, characteristic form, style, or method, as:
a. A composite of traits or features characteristic of an
individual or a group: one's pattern of behavior.
b. Form and style in an artistic work or body of artistic works.
6. a. The configuration of gunshots upon a target that is used
as an indication of skill in shooting.
b. The distribution and spread, around a targeted region, of spent
shrapnel, bomb fragments, or shot from a shotgun.
7. Enough material to make a complete garment.
8. A test pattern.
9. The flight path of an aircraft about to land: a flight pattern.
10. Football. A pass pattern.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved."
None of those sound to me like what Pirsig is talking about when he
says pattern. I think he means it in the way we talk about
mathematical patterns.
Dictionary.com also gives this:
"pattern
\Pat"tern\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Patterned; p. pr. & vb. n. Patterning.]
1. To make or design (anything) by, from, or after, something that
serves as a pattern; to copy; to model; to imitate. --Milton.
[A temple] patterned from that which Adam reared in Paradise. --Sir T.
Herbert.
2. To serve as an example for; also, to parallel.
To pattern after, to imitate; to follow.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc."
and this:
"pattern
\Pat"tern\, n. [OE. patron, F. patron, a patron, also, a pattern. See
Patron.] 1. Anything proposed for imitation; an archetype; an exemplar;
that which is to be, or is worthy to be, copied or imitated; as, a
pattern of a machine.
I will be the pattern of all patience. --Shak.
2. A part showing the figure or quality of the whole; a specimen; a
sample; an example; an instance.
He compares the pattern with the whole piece. --Swift.
3. Stuff sufficient for a garment; as, a dress pattern.
4. Figure or style of decoration; design; as, wall paper of a
beautiful pattern.
5. Something made after a model; a copy. --Shak.
The patterns of things in the heavens. --Heb. ix. 23.
6. Anything cut or formed to serve as a guide to cutting or forming
objects; as, a dressmaker's pattern.
7. (Founding) A full-sized model around which a mold of sand is made,
to receive the melted metal. It is usually made of wood and in several
parts, so as to be removed from the mold without injuring it.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc."
Still no good as far as I can tell. And finally this:
"pattern
n 1: a perceptual structure; "the composition presents problems for
students of musical form"; "a visual pattern must include not only
objects but the spaces between them" [syn: form, shape] 2: a customary
way of operation or behavior; "it is their practice to give annual
raises"; "they changed their dietary pattern" [syn: practice] 3: a
decorative or artistic work; "the coach had a design on the doors"
[syn: design, figure] 4: something regarded as a normative example;
"the convention of not naming the main character"; "violence is the
rule not the exception"; "his formula for impressing visitors" [syn:
convention, normal, rule, formula] 5: a model considered worthy of
imitation; "the American constitution has provided a pattern for many
republics" 6: something intended as a guide for making something else;
"a blueprint for a house"; "a pattern for a skirt" [syn: blueprint,
design] 7: the path that is prescribed for an airplane that is
preparing to land at an airport; "the traffic patterns around O'Hare
are very crowded"; "they stayed in the pattern until the fog lifted"
[syn: traffic pattern, approach pattern] v 1: plan or create according
to a model or models [syn: model] 2: form a pattern; "These sentences
pattern like the ones we studied before"
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University"
The first one "perceptual structure" seems to fit best. What do you
think?
>
>> What I mean is that I can't see why we need to say it. First of all,
>> no
>> one disagrees and secondly, I personally can think about deductive
>> logic
>> without thinking about someone thinking deductively.
>
> It's a neat trick if you can think about something without yourself
> thinking.
>
That's not what I'm saying. I mean I usually think without thinking of
myself thinking. I don't see any great mystery in "disembodied
intellect" by calling intellectual patterns patterns of thought.
>> You keep saying that
>> we can't divorce intellectual patterns from the individual having the
>> thought. I'm not sure what premise without evidence you are talking
>> about.
>> I'm not sure what you mean by divorcing in this case. What's wrong
>> with
>> talking about intellectual patterns without regard to who is thinking
>> them?
>> Having regard for who is thinking or saying what is a social
>> pattern, no?
>
> Having high regard for individuals is an intellectual pattern--freedom
> of
> speech, of religion, trial by jury, one man one vote, etc.
That's not what I mean. I'm saying that a statement is true or false
regardless of who is saying it.
>
>> Are you aware of any justification in Pirsig's work for levels
>> including other levels? Doesn't Pirsig say the levels are discrete?
>
> Please refer to Wim's post of 20 Apr 04.
>
Ok.
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 : Sat Apr 24 2004 - 23:53:44 BST