Hi Bo,
Steve:
...[Wim] considered Pirsig's idea of static latching which brought
him to
thinking about how the different types of patterns are latched or
maintained. Biological patterns are maintained through DNA. Social
patterns are maintained through unconscious copying of behavior.
Intellectual patterns are maintained through unconscious copying of
rationales for behavior. Looking at how patterns are maintained can
help you distinguish what sort of pattern you are talking about. For
example, though ants have societies in some sense, their behavior is
rigidly controlled by their genes. they do not, as far as I know,
learn new behaviors from other ants the way mammals do. They do not
participate in any social patterns. There is no such thing as ant
culture which is passed down through other means than DNA. The
biological/social distinction is then very clear, at least in theory.
All we have to do is think about whether a behavior is a DNA encoded
response to an organisms environment or a copied behavior chosen
based
on its social quality where terms like celebrity and status are
helpful in understanding what quality is.
Bo:
Yes, I remember Wim (Nusselder) though no fan of his "latching"
theory. Pirsig describes how the inorganic pattern - carbon - became
the stepping stone between "inorgany" and biology and that was how
far he brought it. To look for mechanisms beyond the stepping stone
stage (i.e. the pattern of the lower level that makes up the building
block of the upper) is futile.
Pirsig postulates that the MOQ unites
creation and evolution and venturing into evolution's (science's)
ground isn't MOQ's business. Besides (I'm on thin ice here) DNA isn't
the way the most simple organisms reproduce, doesn't virus use it's
host DNA to produce itself? Now, with only virus present it could not
reproduce at all ... see I make a fool of myself. .
Steve:
Ok, but I don't see what is so futile. Isn't it at all helpful to
think about whether a behavior is genetically encoded or socially
learned in distinguishing between social and biological patterns? It
is to me.
Bo:
Still worse - slanderous - is the "unconscious copying copying
behavior". Social value is as active today as it was when the 3rd.
level was "leading edge", only under/behind the mighty intellectual
level, yet when the bells toll and intellect's latch slips we all
resort to
the social level, but "unconscious copying" is not the
characteristic -
rather what I call the social level's "expression" namely EMOTIONS.
Steve:
I agree that emotions probably are the stepping stone, the carbon
atom, that was needed for an evolutionary leap in the creation of
social patterns. What you are not explaining is why it isn't useful
to think about how social patterns are propagated, which I think is
through unconscious copying of behavior.
Bo:
Anthills, beehives and other insect colonies aren't societies in a
Quality sense rather enlarged organism and they coordinate their
actions by biology's expression - SENSES!.
Steve:
Agreed about insect colonies, though I'm not sure what you mean by
"expression."
Steve previously:
Perhaps the social/intellectual distinction is still difficult, but
considering whether a behavior is maintained through copying one to
another or whether we aren't even talking about a behavior but rather
a rationale for behavior can be helpful. What do you think?
Bo:
Not difficult at all. The social "stepping stone" to intellect is as
described in ZAMM "an increasing ability of abstraction with the
Greeks" (I don't have the book on this machine or with me) that
triggered the philosophical frenzy that developed into the SOM as
further described in ZAMM. This would be translated into MOQ's
intellectual level whose "expression" is REASON.
Steve:
Socially propagated language is the stepping stone that allows for
the evolution of reason. Why is it not helpful in distinguishing
intellectual and social patterns to think of reasons for behavior as
distinct from the unconsciously copied social patterns? Also, I don't
see what the philosophical frenzy over SOM has to do with
distinguishing social and intellectual patterns. I think it is enough
to say that the intellectual level is the set of all patterns of
thought, our habits of mind, all the ways we created to give
rationales for our behaviors.
Best,
Steve
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/
