Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Thu, 9 Oct 1997 22:57:55 +0100
> Hi Magnus. The beat goes on.
>
> I agree that intell-patterns do not operate with the laws of bio-patterns
or
> any other type of pattern for that matter. But they cannot be supported
> directly by bio-patterns.
Your example of being the only one left in the world shows that
intell-patterns can indeed by supported by bio-patterns since society has
become extinct. But in the big scheme of evolutionary history you're right.
Your example commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness wherby the
specific doesn't fit the general.
> I'm much more orthodox on this issue. When I say dependent, I mean
dependent
> as in: If the social patterns dissapears, the intellectual patterns will
go
> with it. I think you're adding something to the MoQ which is not there.
Yes. Your general thesis is correct even though your example doesn't
support it. Permit me at this point to bring quality back into the
conversation. Each level includes but transcends the level below it.
Generally speaking, take away society and intellect goes with it, take away
biology and society goes with it, take away inorganic and biology goes with
it. Thus each level has value to all levels above, sometimes called
instrumental or "extrinsic" value. From that viewpoint, all levels have
equal value. From this comes the notion of biological and cultural equality
wherein all creatures great and small are considered equally precious and
all cultures equally wonderful. But as Pirsig repeatedly points out, all
levels do not have equal "instrinsic" value. The bio-level embraces the
inorg-level but adds "life" to it. Likewise, the social level embraces the
inorganic and bio-levels but adds "tool-making." The intell-level embraces
all levels below it but adds "abstraction." Each subsequent level contains
more instrinsic value than its predecessors. Thus it is better to kill a
carrot than a chicken, better to kill a chicken than a human, better to
jail a common criminal than a Galileo. Today's academic intellectuals with
their amoral "objectivity" have trouble making these intrinsic value
distinctions. So we get this litany, "There are no absolutes, truth is
relative, and who are we to judge?" For me the message from Pirsig that one
can rationally make value judgments based on a rational MOQ is perhaps the
most important message of all.
> Ok then, what else is there that defines the organic level. If the
> reproduction is used both to evolve and to spread identical patterns,
> then what's so special about those identical patterns that's spreading?
You've quoted the Pirsig words that help define the bio-level, mitosis and
meiosis. DNA spreads non-identical patterns, thanks to a bit of DQ built
into this level as in all levels. The higher you go, the more DQ.
> > The senses of touch, sight, taste, hearing, smell are reproduced
> > minute by minute by static bio-patterns.
>
> Wait a minute, this is not the same reproduction as above. This isn't
> reproduction at all. It is Quality Events, and every QE is unique. I
think
> you of all people should know that.
Are you saying there are no Quality Events in the absence of these senses?
Seems to me that all evolution from the first quark to first human depended
on Quality Events. As Doug pointed in his post of Oct. 8 in response to
Gene Kofman, "... 'awareness' or 'pattern recognition' may scale across the
MoQ SPoV spectrum," and went on to observe, "Perhaps it was Magnus, but I
think others may have hinted at this too."
> BTW, I found the quote in Lila I talked about, (The end of Ch. 11)
> "... the shift in cell reproduction from mitosis to meiosis to permit
> sexual choice and allow huge DNA diversification is a Dynamic advance.
> So is the collective organizations of cells into metazoan societies
> called plants and animals."
>
> I guess it's open for different interpretations, but I interpret it
> as Pirsig says that plants and animals are social SPoVs.
Social maybe, but not cultural. I interpret Pirsig's social level to be
synonymous with cultural level.
> I'm all with you, and it seems to me that I'm generalizing more than
anyone
> on the TLS. I do this by stripping off all non-significant variables to
> get to the core of problems. This usually leads to very mechanical and
> static setups, but that's the point, to get rid of DQ so there's only
> static patterns left. There's a big difference between general and
ambigous.
Agreed. We both generalize which makes our conversation so open and
interesting (to me anyway). But I wouldn't call DQ a non-significant
variable, nor do I think it's possible to get rid of DQ in our discussions
because it is firmly embedded in static patterns, especially social and
intellectual patterns.
Platt
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:05 CEST