Hi Steve,
Those were very interesting interpretations of the static
levels, and raise some interesting questions.
For instance, if social patterns are "unconscious copying
of behavior" and intellectual patterns "unconscious
copying of rationales of behavior, then does this suggest
that intellectual patterns might usurp our behavior
entirely if we were to become entirely guided by
rationales of behavior? Or does the "unconscious" bit
signify a trait we are unlikely to shake, and therefore such
a dream (well into its third millennium) equally unlikely?
What's the relationship between "rationales" in
intellectual patterns and our behavior, particularly if the
former are unconscious, too? And why are intellectual
patterns copied unconsciously? Aren't rationales the
paradigm of conscious behavior?
Also, if you are going to suggest that the answer to
when the first intellectual pattern bubbled up to the
surface of the social goo is "mu," I wonder if you should
be partial to this kind of argument:
Steve said:
Social patterns are neither true nor false. They evolved
prior to such concepts as true and false. About a social
pattern we may ask, "is this behavior acceptable?"
Matt:
If you can't place time and date because of the
conceptual muddiness of the two, than the distinction
between the two must be a stipulation of some kind. And
if it's a stipulation to help us deal with two different kinds
of patterns that we've stipulated as different for
organizing sake, then you've sort of answered this
question: "do we know that the concepts of true and false
evolved after social patterns?" If the earlier suggestion is
"mu," the later answer would seem to be "no." This
simply means that "priority" is out a place in an argument
like this. It might mean more consequentially for the MoQ,
I don't know, but at the very least it suggests that you
have to hang your hat on a stipulation between truth and
acceptability.
Matt
> Steve:
> I think the idea of looking for a moment in time to distinguish social
> and intellectual patterns is wrong-headed since we participate in both
> sorts of patterns right now and it is impossible the exact instant
> when the first intellectual pattern was established. I think a better
> approach is to consider how patterns are maintained or "latched"
> today.
>
> Social patterns are propagated through unconscious copying of human
> behavior. From the choice of what patterns are copied we infer such
> descriptions of social quality as celebrity, style, coolness,
> righteousness, and status.
>
> Intellectual patterns are propagated through unconscious copying of
> rationales for behavior. From the choice of which patterns are copied
> we infer such descriptions as truth and parsimony. Intellectual
> patterns are ideas about which it makes sense to ask, "is this true?
> or "is there a better or simpler explanation?"
>
> Intellectual patterns are habits of mind or patterns of thought.
> Pirsig defined intellect as the manipulation of symbols that stand for
> patterns of experience.
>
> Social patterns are neither true nor false. They evolved prior to such
> concepts as true and false. About a social pattern we may ask, "is
> this behavior acceptable?"
>
> Social patterns are not symbolic. They are patterns of behavior of
> biological entities while intellectual patterns are patterns of
> behavior of symbols such as numbers, musical notes, or words.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
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/
