From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Aug 02 2004 - 21:47:02 BST
Paul:
Firstly, I think writing itself is a socially learned skill. Secondly, I
think written words may contain intellectual patterns but may not.
OK, we agree then that isn't the use of symbols itself that makes something
a fourth level pattern.
Johnny said:
And couldn't an intellectual pattern never be expressed with symbols,
like say the pattern of overthrowing a leader when he becomes too
tyrannical or blasphemous?
Paul:
Well, I think the "overthrowing" itself would be achieved biologically
and socially. If the *consequences* of the overthrow have been
considered rationally, then that would be the symbolic intellectual
component. If the overthrow is predicted to increase the dominance of
intellect over society, then that would be intellectual motivation also.
I don't think considering the consequences of overthrow has to be done with
the use of symbols or language, does it? Or that it wouldn't be a fourth
level pattern if the overthrow was predicted to increase social dominance
over intellectual. I guess I was trying to say that there is a patten to
societies overthrowing a leader when certain conditions arise, and, whether
or not people in society write about it or talk about it, that pattern
exists.
Paul:
It [the book Lila] is also about biological patterns, inorganic patterns,
other
intellectual patterns and Dynamic Quality, so I don't see how being
"about society" provides a definition of intellect. I think you are
trying to follow a line of thought which doesn't quite work i.e. biology
is interacting atoms, society is interacting organisms, therefore
intellect is interacting societies. If you take the components of
language as the social patterns that enable intellect by interacting, it
may work, but I'm not sure.
That is the line of thought I am trying to follow, indeed. And I think you
might be right that language might enable intellectual ideas about society
to emerge, in that every statement is an implicit exhortation to listen and
apply the statement and by writing it down or symbolising it, it becomes an
exhortation for all of society to apply the statement to society, as opposed
to telling someone "look out for that dog poo" which is socially expected
but not a statement about society. That might be the connection I'm looking
for to get back into the orthodoxy.
And I think this exchange from a different post will help me make a point
about the line of thought I'm trying to folow:
David said:
The fact that individually generated intellectual patterns can later be
shared with other fully emerged individuals...
Paul:
Fully emerged individuals? To me, this is an ideal that you and Platt
seem to start with that you are then fudging into the MOQ. It sounds
more like Maslow or Rand than Pirsig.
This is the same subject, I think. Fully emerged individuals have as much
to do with intellectual patterns as fully emerged atoms have to do with bio
patterns. Only atoms in certain relationships with other atoms will
propogate a bio pattern, and only bio patterns in certain relationships with
other bio patterns will propogate a social pattern, but the pattern is
independent of them. Same with the intellectual patterns.
Platt and David don't consider fourth level patterns to emerge from
relations of third level patterns but from the individual minds of the
people who thought of them. I agree that they emerge and are propogated by
individual minds, like all patterns. But I think a person who notices an
oak tree that's been there for a hundred years propogates that pattern with
exactly the same amount of creativity and choice as someone who invents an
airplane. In both cases, the patterns of Quality all had to converge in a
certain way and create a consciousness aware of the new pattern, or it
wouldn't fit into the universe, it wouldn't make sense, if everything were
known. How could the Wright brothers not have invented the airplane, given
history?
And just as the airplane is an intellectual pattern that developed over
social patterns (Airplanes are "about society" in that the pattern says
"society should have these airplane things in it and people should fly
around the earth") No "individual" hydrogen and oxygen atoms invented
water (though some must have been 'first'), and no "individual" human
invented airplanes.
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
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 Aug 02 2004 - 21:47:57 BST