[Ham] ...it would seem to me that what you guys are calling "intellect" is human, whether at a social or individual level of nature. All the rest -- inorganic, biological, social -- are "non-human". Although I find it difficult to understand how the human intellect arises out of society (which is non-human and precedes it), I won't quibble over the official order of things.
[Krimel] In fact Pirsig, mistakenly I think, asserts that the social level is entirely human as well. In any case humans are also made of inorganic stuff and biological stuff but these realms are not exclusively human as are the social and intellectual. But here is how intellect might arise out of society. Human social responses are ours by virtue of our evolutionary heritage. Primates in the main are social creatures and part of being a social creature is interacting with others. From most members of the primate family the expression and the understanding of the expression of emotion suffices. The physiology of emotion is communicated through outward signs that are linked to the emotional experience of the individual. Smiling, frowning, open and closed body posture, the pitch of vocalizations; these are all signals arising from and pointing to the emotional state of con-specifics. As our species evolved these emotional expressions became increasing more elaborate. Our primary adaptation is increased brain mass. We have about three times the cortical tissue as our nearest relative. We have every reason to suppose that this increased neural functions to preserve past experience. It expands memory. Prior to this expansion of memory in neural form most memory was preserved in the form of DNA or genetic code. In humans this hard coded memory becomes secondary to neutrally coded memory and the experience of the individual. As our ancestors evolved the ability to recall greater and greater expanses of their own personal history, we became unstuck in time. We were not confined to the immediate instant. Our past, encoded in memory allowed us to live in other moments and to compare and contrast the past with the present. I suspect that this process of becoming unstuck in time allows for the taking of multiple perspectives, which is what Tomesello talks about. As he claims, language seems to grow out of this ability to appreciate and share multiple perspectives. There really cannot be an intellectual "level" without some means of encoding and decoding the past. [Ham] Now when events precede each other we call it "evolution", and when later events dominate earlier events we have an "evolutionary hierarchy in process". In a manner of speaking, what we're defining here is the evolving universe, or "existence" as we know it. [Krimel] It really is not possible for later events to dominate earlier events. This would involve some kind of time paradox, as in the case of the new Star Trek movie which seems to be taking us into an alternative time line. Events preceding each other is what we call the passage of time. Evolution is an account of how and why present circumstances result from the processes of the past. [Ham] Intellection is something individuals do, socially or by themselves. It's the analytical function of conscious awareness, not a repertory of knowledge hanging around in the social milieu waiting for people to latch onto it. [Krimel] Intellection seems to be a word you made up because for reasons known only to you 'cognition' is not good enough. But nevermind that for a second, the intellectual level IS indeed "a repertory of knowledge hanging around in the social milieu waiting for people to latch onto it." Emotional expression is encoded genetically and is sufficient to improve the reproductive success of most mammals (emotion is a uniquely mammalian adaptation). As our species evolved language as an elaboration of emotional expression, we became better able to share not only joint experiences of the present but distant experiences of the past. We began to tell stories around the fireside. Those stories became "common knowledge". All societies at some stage in their history rely on an oral tradition to preserve the shared memories of the past. As writing developed that "common knowledge' became permanently encoded in clay and stone and skin and paper. Until the invention of writing all biological experience was encoded either as DNA or as individual memory. Writing allows biological experiences to be encoded in inorganic form. As such it can survive much longer than the life span of the individual who encoded it. The intellectual level is the accumulation of this encoded experience. So yes it IS just "hanging around in the social milieu waiting for people to latch onto it." And I might add waiting for people to add to it. [Ham] I'd say that experience is acquiring knowledge, which is not possible without thought. [Krimel] This is just factually wrong. Many times the experience of individuals changes their future repertoire of responses without any thinking at all. Insects and fish can be classically conditioned. This is where experience modifies even autonomic responses. Procedural memory occurs when we learn a new skill like chipping stone into tools, weaving or riding a bicycle. None of these require thought, at least not language mediated thought. In fact in this sense perhaps MOST knowledge is acquired without thought. [Ham] Where Quality (Value) is concerned, I agree that it precedes thinking; but it is not experience. [Krimel] Quality in the sense that it is a "sense" or as I prefer to think of it a "sense of senses" is not the product of individual experience. It is genetically encoded. The experience of our ancestors tells us what is good and what is bad for us. We are hardwired to like some things and dislike others. [Ham] It is what I call "value-sensibility" and define as the essence of being aware. Valuation leads to experience but, like intellection, does not exist without a conscious agent (i.e., subject). This may seem like only a semantic disagreement to you, but I consider it critical to acknowledge value-sensibility as primary to (experiential) existence. [Krimel] Sensation is certainly the essence of awareness in that awareness is the result of parallel processing. Awareness is the synthesis of diverse sensations. When those diverse sensations are integrated and placed alongside the stored recollections of previous experience, perception gives rise to conception. We begin to abstract the common features of the past and relate them to the present as guides to the future. Essence is nothing more than the set of common features of past events encoded as concepts. While encoding and decoding are certainly unique to individuals. We are as a species, makers of meaning. But code whether it is genetically, linguistically or artistically rendered is not dependant on any single individual. In fact each individual is entirely dependent on the code itself. [Ham] I believe with Protagoras that "man is the measure of all things" and that the universe is anthropocentric. The Pirsigian believes that the evolutionary world is primary and divides it into four levels of quality. [Krimel] I think that man is the "measurer" of all things. In the process of measuring we construct an anthropocentric universe. After all we only care about those things that relate to us as individuals. But to claim that the universe itself is somehow dependant on MAN... well that's just vanity. [Ham] What is metaphysically meaningless is a transitional universe in which man is an irrelevant byproduct -- a universe that arises from nothingness and "moves toward betterness" for its own purposes. [Krimel] The first part of your statement is indeed hard to swallow but hardly "meaningless". It means a great deal to understand that we are products of the processes of the "universe" not the reason for it or cause of it. This is painful to accept. But so far every attempt to explain this away just dissolves into self pity or self adulation. The frank acknowledgement that the universe doesn't give a rat's ass about us is sugar coated and concealed within all of the major religions. The second part of your statement is I believe your version of Pirsig's inability to see or grasp the essential conclusion of evolutionary theory. What he or at least some of his interpreters miss is that "betterness" is a relative term and "purpose" is an emergent property of feedback systems. [Ham] But, in the end, each individual must find his own meaning in life, whether it has the support of an authoritative source or not. [Krimel] Or as Johnny Cash might have said: "You gotta walk that lonesome valley You gotta walk it for yourself, Nobody here can walk it for you, You gotta walk it for yourself." 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/
