OK. I'm sorry if I've pushed too hard. But if what you say, here, can imply
that motives are NOT just behaviors at a higher level of organization, then
perhaps that's progress.
Because it seems to have traction, I'll stick with the tissue, cell, molecule
set. The reason I suggested you replace your "higher level" hierarchy with
words describing a heterarchy, is because we (none of us) can pinpoint the
tissue organizing logic [†]. While it's a useful fiction to suggest that
tissue is cells organized at a higher level, we can *just as well* say tissue
is organized by cellular behavior collectively.
So, in one hierarchy, we have {tissue <- cell <- molecules}. But in another
hierarchy, we have {cell <- tissue, cell <- molecules}. If you set your email
client to monospace:
tissue
|
cells
|
molecules
versus:
cells
| |
tissue molecules
One of the definitions of "heterarchy" is that the components can be organized
in multiple ways. So, again, I apologize if my attempts are irritating. But
it *really* would help dorks like me parse what you're saying if you used words
that allowed for more complete statements. I've tried to suggest "layer" and
"order" as a replacement for "level". Some suggestions for replacing your
statement about motives might be:
Motives ARE behaviors, just dynamically mixed by the organism.
Motives ARE behaviors, just organized to cohere.
Motives ARE behaviors, just a heterarchy re-organizable to approach a goal.
I'd claim that each of those is more accurate and complete than "organized at a
higher level". To boot, they give your audience a much *better* hint at your
"if you stand next to me, you will see what I see." That's because each one of
my rewordings directly implies an organizing agency. Your "organized at a
higher level" can be taken to be an ontological assertion ... that this
hierarchy is ensconced in the universe and would be a feature of, say, silicon
based life on Alpha Centauri.
All it takes is to stop relying on this higher- and lower-level fiction.
[†] Is it in the cells? Is it in the genes? Is it an attractor that might
obtain even if the cells were zero-intelligence agents? I would argue that
"it" is distributed across the whole set of components and relations ...
further arguing that it's a heterarchy. But all we need to do for this
discussion is admit that we don't really know and use words that give a more
complete indication *that* we don't really know and need to study it further.
On 1/6/19 4:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> In the first instance, to a pragmatist, any statement that X is Thus, is
> incomplete. So that statement, X is hierarchically organized, is just an
> incomplete statement. So an argument about whether anything IS JUST
> hierarchically organized is a silly argument. What is not a silly argument
> is that X is hierarchically organized for some purpose of from point of
> view, P. So all attributions are three0valued, sign, object, interpretant.
> Is this relativism? No, not in the ordinary sense. Because the pragmatist
> asserts that if you stand next to me, you will see what I see. Or, to put
> it less metaphorically, if you do the experiment you will get the result.
> So, if you take Eric or I to be saying that anything is one hundred present
> hierarchically organized all the time and in all respects, you take us
> wrong.
--
∄ uǝʃƃ
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
