Hi Bo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Aren't both of you saying that symbol manipulation is *not* a level 4
>> activity? So if it's not level 4, and you say that the social level
>> don't see a threat, then I assumed you mean it's social. Is that so
>> far fetched? I'm pretty sure everyone else read it like that, or?
>
> I am saying that biology evolved the neural capacity to - you
> know - but at that level there is no "manipulation of symbols"
> (MOS) any more than we know that a dream is a dream when
> dreaming. This capacity was adopted by the social level and with
> language added the symbols that at the bio. were images (I
> guess) became words (silent) but still not recognized as "abstract
> thoughts in a mind", this knowledge is entirely intellect's. Get the
> point?
Yes, I get the point. But you're skipping ahead way too fast and sketchy
to make it a viable theory. You're forgetting that you must always be
able to explain everything on the way. For example, what *are* those
"images" above? Say it's an image of a prey in the mind of a hungry
predator. The image is not the prey, because the prey is still alive,
outside the predator. The image is not a biological pattern, because
such patterns are things like taste, smell, hearing, sight, etc. Such
things the predator must experience in "real-time", but the image we're
talking about is something the predator can imagine in his head anytime
he wants.
So, for starters, what *is* that image?
> But this particular knowledge isn't the threat to social value,
> rather intellect's fallout notion that beliefs (in God, in good/bad
> (moras) in honor ...etc.) are just some subjective taking place in
> (their) mind. THAT is a world-shaking upheaval and we see that
> the Muslim world won't have the Western dissolution of morals at
> any price.
Bo, I said this a few weeks ago, and I think I've said it before too. I
*do* agree with a lot of what you (and Pirsig of course) have said about
how the intellectual level have influenced the world in recent
millennia. This does *not* contradict any of my theories about extending
levels downwards to smaller dimensions, it just makes it possible to see
how useful the MoQ is regardless of size.
> Magnus:
>> This gets really strange. You say biology doesn't know that a scent is
>> just a signal, and the social level doesn't know that a word is just a
>> sound symbolizing something else. This distinction belongs solely to
>> intellect. Ok, I mostly agree with that.
>
> Good. From strange to acceptance in no time.
The strange part comes below.
>> But then, you say this distinction belongs to intellect, yet it is not
>> level 4?
>
> The inversion that befalls intellect from its SOM role to its MOQ
> role is crucial. To SOM "intellect" is thinking (the "manipulation"
> part of the MOS only) while MOQ's 4th level's value is the S/O
> distinction, in this case symbols as different from what they
> symbolize.
This sounds as if the SOM intellect is one level and your 4th level is
some other level. Or is the SOM intellect part of a lower level? In
which case, which one?
>> So, a word is not social, and not your level 4, so what is it?
>
> As moqists we are supposed to see everything in the level
> context and from that perspective words (language) is originally a
> social pattern, but brought into the 4th. level words became
> symbols that stands for something else. About lower levels'
> patterns becoming part of the upper's repertoire and there getting
> a different role is no mystery. Matter becoming "flesh" at the
> 2.nd. level for instance.
That wasn't so hard, was it? "brought into the 4th. level words became
symbols that stands for something else" is exactly what I mean with a
level 4 pattern. A pattern that stands for something else (not
necessarily another level 4 pattern though).
But why do you have to insist on adding the S/O division into this? We
already have a definition of the 4:th level, but if you add another
constraint, some patterns will no longer fit in that new level, and will
fall between the chairs. Where would they belong?
>> The only thing I've done is to define the levels in more detail,
>> thereby making it possible to discuss a time/place where humans aren't
>> the only ones making quality judgments.
>
> As Pirsig says (in the PT letter) a line must be drawn somewhere
> for the social level lest it becomes useless (its biological roots
> show) as must be done for intellect, and he actually draws its line
> with the Greek thinkers (in MOQ this means SOM), but then he
> possibly saw the SOL implication and hastily added the cryptic
> "Oriental Intellect".
Here I really think Pirsig is being overly cautious, just barely missing
out on "coward".
This is also why I started the "what is a metaphysics to you" thread the
other week. It seems I'm pretty alone at being a die-hard metaphysicist
here. I mean, why on earth would you want to draw a line based on *size*
for any level? Exactly *where* in the MoQ primer does it say anything
about SIZE??? If you start adding stuff like that later on just because
you can't overcome a few obstacles along the way, why bother trying to
define (or for that matter *use*) a metaphysics at all?
We would have a definition of the social level like. A society is a
bunch of biological entities that values living together, larger than
10cm3. I mean, look how stupid it sounds.
>> As I said in my previous post, at least Chris is making a much larger
>> change to the MoQ since he need to extend the biological level to
>> encompass much of what we mean by intellect. If you don't agree it
>> would be very interesting to see you two resolve that one.
>
> I'm reeling after all these years and do not follow messages not
> directly for me so where Chris .. extends biology into intellect ??
> but spell it out to me and I'll try.
Chris wrote 15/3:
> About all of this. Evolution happens within each level as well -
> indeed, that's mostly where it happens. New levels develop very
> rarely, and the fact that the static biological patterns evolve to
> such a sophisticated level that they (within a social level frame
> perhaps) can handle advanced symbol manipulation doesn't say
> anything about the big picture. There still isn't a trace of a
> level conflict, and that needs to be there for it to be a MOQ level.
Bo commented 17/3:
> Agree about evolution inside each level, yet it's an evolution of
> some basic value. Also about levels seldom develop, IMO there
> can't be any new level, but that's another discussion. You are
> right, THIS isn't the necessary level conflict
The quote I meant was "the static biological patterns evolve to
such a sophisticated level that they (within a social level frame
perhaps) can handle advanced symbol manipulation".
Magnus
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/
