Hi Matt,
> 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? Intellectual patterns could never eliminate social patterns since if we had to first justify every action before acting we would be paralyzed. Likewise we couldn't think without unconsiously latched intellectual patterns as habits of mind by which we can evaluate new ideas and even call into question our own habits of mind in light of our other intellectual patterns. > 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? Intellectual patterns are copied unconsciously but can also be copied consciously. I think that the unconscious copying is how intellectual patterns become widely followed within a community. When justify our behavior, we are consciously thinking (a near tautology by your assertion that rationales are the paradigm of conscious behavior) but unconsciously applying patterns of thought that were copied unconsciously. We don't necessarily think, "I am going to apply the habit of mind called the transitive property to this situation." Instead we simply reason, "if Bob is taller than Ann and Ann is taller than Jane then Bob is taller than Jane." We don't generally think about whether this pattern of thought called the transitive property is actually justified. We just apply it and jump from premise to conclusion and behave accordingly. What I'm suggesting is that we consider how we acquire such a pattern of thought as the transitive property in our own evolutions rather than decide when the first intellectual pattern evolved sometime in history. > > 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?" I'm not saying that the date of emergence question needs to be unasked because the answer is mu. I'm saying that the question needs to be unasked or not asked so frequently or obsessively since the answer is probably unknowable and because there is a more relevent way to think about the evolution of patterns of value. > 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. I agree with Pirsig that social patterns evolved prior to intellectual patterns. I just don't think that picking a moment in time for the occurence of the first intellectual pattern is important especially since this same evolution of patterns occurs every day as biological babies begin to participate in social patterns and later begin to participate in intellectual patterns. I also think that if we all agree that the first intellectual pattern occurred on such and such a date, we would still have little idea about what is meant by a social pattern as opposed to an intellectual pattern which was Mary's original question. 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/
