Jorge Steve, Magnus.
On 28 Jan. Jorge wrote:
> Bo writes: If I could get hold of the earliest entries to the Lila
> Squad discussion I would be able to document that I spoke of fuzzy
> lines between the levels from the start" Glad to know that you also
> thought of it. I would be very interested in reading those entries from
> Lila Squad if you can dig them up. No point on repeating what has
> already been said.
I think those postings are deleted, but never mind, they aren't that
important. The point is (as shown in Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner:
There has been a tendency to extend the meaning of
"social" down into the biological with the assertion that, for
example, ants are social, but I have argued that this
extends the meaning to a point where it is useless for
classification. I said that even atoms can be called
societies of electrons and protons. And since everything
is thus social, why even have the word? I think the same
happens to the term, "intellectual," when one extends it
much before the Ancient Greeks.*
.. that one reaches a point where the upper level merges with the
lower. Inorganic patterns dissolves into quantum weirdness,
biological patterns ends up in something indistinguishable from
"death". Social patterns (as said by Pirsig) becomes biological
and ... OBS OBS ... intellect is best seen as beginning with the
Greeks which in a MOQ context means SOM=intellect.
> Bo also writes: " An organism is a biological pattern, the fact that it
> is made up of matter does not mean that it shares some properties
> properties with the inorganic level". If I read you correctly you are
> implying that the criteria for ascribing something to a given level
> depends on the type of the controlling pattern. I tend to agree on that.
By "controlling pattern" you mean the at any instant the topmost
one? Yes, that's it. A piece of rock are various inorganic
patterns, an organism is inorganic patterns overlaid by biological
ones, and so on upwards.
> However, it seems to conflict with Steve's and Magnus criteria for
> categorizing. Do I take it that you haven't arrived at a consensus view
> on categorizing among the four levels? Or I am misreading some or all of
> you?
I don't believe that Steve and Magnus can disagree with this
above, but trust Magnus to come up with some impenetrable stuff
;-)
> Bo also writes: "I can't find one example that throws spanners in this
> works, but you may have some that I haven't thought of." Not that my
> intention is to throw spanners around but, if the four levels are
> thought of as discrete, not continuous, with well-defined boundaries, I
> can visualize dozens of 'embarrassing' examples; on the other hand if
> the four levels are thought as fuzzy sets then I can't think of any.
Glad to hear that, but the said fuzziness is just around the
borders, when the second or third generation of the next level's
patterns are established the discretion becomes sharp. "Family"
is biological in the sense that most higher animals rear their
young ..etc, but the mafioso family is clearly a social entity. Tribe
is also a name we use re. primate colonies, but the Rwandan
"Hutus" and "Tutsis" are social configurations, the most basic
there is.
IMO
Bo
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
