Hi Bo
> The 4th. level is a static subset, isn't it natural that the MOQ has
> the "bird's eye view" while the said level has the worm's ditto?
No, it's not natural. There *is* no higher level from which to view the
4th level. The only thing within a MoQ world view that may be considered
higher than the 4th static level is DQ, but you can't view anything from
DQ, because pure DQ doesn't stay constant from one moment to the next.
> But - alas - I fear that your astonishment stems from the
> "intellect=thinking" fallacy, after all these years it's still going
> strong. And please no "your MoQ", it's THE MOQ.
Actually, I've begun to care less and less about your intellect,
thinking and other ad-hoc distinctions around the 4th level. And as long
as you describe a MoQ which is vastly different from one that makes
sense, I'll keep calling it "your MoQ".
Your MoQ is so concentrated around thinking that it has hardly room for
anything else. I asked a few weeks ago if you could give an example of
an inorganic pattern, and the only thing you could come up with was
"death", which is simply your version on non-thinking. Another
implication from your thought-centric MoQ is that you have to come up
with level definitions based on thought. This is why you have to invent
these ad-hoc distinctions such as intellect vs thinking. Your levels are
solely based on thought, it's social thinking here and biological mode
there. It seems you're simply incapable of discussing the levels in
terms of what they really *are*, you always convert such questions into
how thinking creatures respond to the different levels.
>> So, what is the difference between stating that "a pattern is a 4:th
>> level pattern", and "the value of intellect is that of seeing the
>> difference...". That sounds like your 4:th level is (again) divided
>> into two parts.
>
> Well, it's the "intellect in its SOM role to its 4th. Q-level role"
> inside-out turn that must be understood. The MOQ is revolution,
> do you think its just a continuation of SOM or more sloshing
> around of old tea?
No, *I* don't think it's a continuation of SOM, but you obviously do.
>> Would you stop involving SOM in this? We're talking about the MoQ, and
>> if you can't discuss intellect without involving SOM, then it seems
>> your theory depends on SOM for some reason. And that wouldn't be a
>> good dependency.
>
> No way, SOM is part and parcel of the MOQ. Pirsig saw the
> necessity of incorporating it into the MOQ, I don't find his way
> very useful, the only way is to make it the 4th. static level (minus
> its M of course) everything indicates it.
So, if you claim that SOM is part and parcel of *your* MoQ, then how is
it *not* a continuation of that SOM? Your MoQ is obviously dependent on
SOM, which Pirsig was trying to *replace*. Replace means to throw away
the old and build something completely new instead, not to keep the old
as a main part of the new.
This seems to be yet another reason not to subscribe to your "SOL
interpretation".
>> If I understood that, then "thinking" itself has no place in your MoQ.
>> And this leaves a pretty big chunk of reality outside the metaphysics
>> you claim does the best job at explaining our reality. That's not
>> cool.
>
> Not again. INTELLIGENCE (which is thinking all right) is the
> storing and retrieval of experience. The social level adopted this
> and applied it for own purpose and with language added it
> became the most powerful social tool.
Wait a minute, you said "the social level adopted this". Doesn't that
mean that the social level adopted intelligence from the biological
level (because no level can adopt anything from a higher level). But you
recently denied that the biological level could support much of what
we mean by intelligence.
> With the 4th. level's
> adapion of intelligence+language the static hierachy reached the
> S/O stage and things were split accordingly: The storage content
> became reflections or symbols, and the manipulation thereof
> became "thinking", while reality was seen as "out there".
Just more your SOM dependency.
>> As I said above, thinking without realizing your thoughts are separate
>> from what they're about, would fall between chairs.
>
> Yes, biology's and the society's "unconscious intelligence" fell
> between chairs before the SOL interpretation.
So that's what you call it this week, "unconscious intelligence". Please...
> I'm not able to
> recall when, but long ago the discussion was about smart animals
> (dolphins I think) and the "thinking interpretation" of the 4th level
> was unable to cope with this issue. If the 4th. level is out of the
> 3rd. than where is this biological thinking from? Maybe it was this
> that initiated the SOL, but it became clear that intellect isn't
> thinking as such, but a very limited kind of thinking: the S/O kind.
No, it was only *you* who chose to extend biology into intelligence, and
then reinvented the S/O split to keep us humans apart from animals.
I chose the other road, to extend the 4:th level downwards, and we've
been at odds ever since.
>> *But* (and will you please read this this time, I've said it many times
>> before). Moving the level boundaries downward, does *not*, and I repeat
>> *NOT*, invalidate any old reasoning about that level. We can still discuss
>> societies in the form of human societies and wolf packs. The only
>> difference is that we have more societies for comparison. We simply get to
>> know *more* about the social level. Is that a *bad* thing?
>
> No, not bad at all if you know/admit that it's society's roots you
> are approaching, but in them old days you sounded as if it was
> social patterns all the way into bee-hives and/or body celles.
I still do. Symbiosis is the simplest kind of society, and the cell is
probably one of the oldest symbiotic societies. We should *learn* from
it, not deny it.
>> I beg to differ, that's not how the social level began, to fight
>> biological urges. It began because it was better to fight the dangers of
>> reality together than to fight individually. This later evolved into
>> different means for society to control its parts. I mean, it was society
>> who created the problem in the first place. Society gave the organisms the
>> spare time, and some of them abused that extra time, which in turn forced
>> society to control it.
>
> I said "escape biology" and in this I agree totally with Pirsig, but
> this we may discuss.
Sure, we can discuss it, as long as you agree that societies can be
found on all scales. Humans, lions, ants, bees and cells. You can of
course try to convince me otherwise, just don't start with your
social/biological "frame of mind" arguments because ants and cells
doesn't have much of a mind.
>> Seen in this light, you can start to appreciate the dynamic advancement of
>> the social level instead of just seeing it as something keeping organisms
>> static. Higher levels are supposed to be more dynamic than lower, but your
>> social level does exactly the opposite.
>
> The bio-socio transition was a dynamic leap, but its further
> development was inside the basic "social value", what's the idea
> with calling the levels static if it's dynamic?
Huh? Didn't you know? Each static level allows for more dynamic
influence than the previous?
The laws of the inorganic level are universal. As static as static gets.
In the 2nd level, different species value different food. And
self-replication allows for slow dynamic change across generations.
The 3rd level allows even more dynamic influence. It can change its
parts into other individuals performing the same function whenever
necessary.
And then the 4th level can allow a person to change its mind about
something in the blink of an eye, and in the process perhaps change
his/her life, or even the laws of his/her society. That's pretty dynamic
to me.
> You noticed Ian's suggestion of a settlement of our ten-year
> debate over the 4th level. He sees Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner
> as the - um - turning point, namely that the Greeks (SOM) spells
> the socio-intellect transition and the human society the bio-socio
> one. It's the only possible road ahead unless the MOQ will remain
> this "mystic" nonsense that only SA and Marsha see any
> value/use of. Why not go for it? There' plenty material for
> discussion material ahead of us. If Chris manages to arrange a
> MOQ conference in Lund this year it may be point from which the
> MOQ can begin to throw its weight around. The impossible 4th
> level has prevented any such advancement till now.
If you call my version of the MoQ *mystic* then you haven't grasped one
word of it. It's extremely pragmatic.
I can agree that the Greeks spelled the socio-intellect transition in
*one* way only, and that's in a human society context. But to really
understand what a society is, we need to look elsewhere.
The same goes for the bio-socio transition, but that's a tautology so
that transition becomes a total blur.
(BTW, did Pirsig really mean that there ever *was* a transition from
single humans to human societies? Wasn't humans a flock animal from its
time as apes in the trees? Which means said transition never took place.)
The 4th level is not impossible at all. Just adopt my version of it and
everything will be fine.
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/
