Hi Magnus,
On 17 Sep 2010 at 20:20, Magnus Berg wrote: Hi Platt On 2010-09-17 18:01, [email protected] wrote: > [P] > Hold it right there. Pirsig makes it clear that all levels are dependent on > the > levels below. Specifically he says culture provides each individual with a set > of "intellectual glasses" each uses to interpret experience with. So I > question > your statement about intellectual patterns not being dependent on social > patterns. > > Magnus: > Even if you take that person and move > it to the moon, it will still be able to think and manipulate thoughts > in his brain. So, the social patterns that those intellectual patterns > depend on, are not the social patterns of its former society, such as > church, school, yada yada. The intellectual patterns of the individual > human are build using what I call the universal stack, but this is not > recognized here very often. People seem to be content with the notion > that the intellectual patterns of a human *is* dependent on the social > patterns of the society, but if you really think about it, it's not the > case. > > [P] > OK, but I've thought about it and Pirsig thought about it and many others have > thought about it and have agreed it's the case. There may be > built-in-the-brain > assumptions about space and time such as Kant opined, but to divorce the > influence of social patterns on intellectual patterns puts the individual on > the moon at birth, a highly unlikely case. Dependent. We seem to have very different opinions about the word. To me, something depends on something else if and only if it can't exist without that something else. To you, it seems to be something like: "Something that can help something else into existence", but that is another word, catalyst. Don't you think that would be a better word for what you're describing as the relation between intellectual patterns and society? A few examples: A biological pattern, take a cell, is dependent on its inorganic patterns - the carbon, the water, the amino acids, etc. Take those away and the cell - the biological pattern - is just as gone. That is dependency. A set of intellectual patterns, take a human, is dependent on all lower levels - the carbon, water, etc. Take that away and the intellectual patterns are also gone. It's also dependent on its biological patterns, so if the human dies, the intellectual patterns are gone even though the inorganic patterns remains intact. That is also dependency. Take the same person, which is supposedly dependent on the society in which it lives, and remove it from that society. Will the intellectual patterns vanish? Not a chance! That is *not* dependency. [P] I think you left out the human capacity for memory. Instellectual patterns are learned from society except some rudimentary patterns some believe are innate. Removing someone from society who then still exhibits intellectual ability doesn't prove he wasn't dependent on society for learning those patterns durning his formative years. So I think your example of non-dependency on society leaves something to be desired, along the lines Arlo has pointed out.. Magnus Pirsig, you and all others who claim it are just doing it because you can't find the real dependency, which is the society of the human body itself. The intellectual patterns of each human being depend on the language of the nerve signals and synapses of the human brain. Take *that* away and the intellectual patterns goes with it. You might even be able to sustain the biological "life" of the rest of the body, because that is not really dependent on neither the synapses nor the intellectual patterns. But then, what you have a brain dead person. Don't you see that it all makes sense? We have here a direct and absolute dependency from intellectual to social through biological down to inorganic. [P] The term "absolute" may be what you are relying on. There are people with defective nerve signals and brain synapses who still are capable of forming intellectual patterns. There are degrees of biological functioning. So I consider your argument to be flawed. > [P] > I think I may be getting a glimmer of understanding you. Correct me if I'm > wrong. > > 1. Your reference to "underlying assumptions" is restricted to your three > stacks, Computer, Universal and Human. It doesn't mean, as I first thought, > that your system could reveal all the assumptions underlying a philosophical > point of view such as those underlying science. Magnus Hmm... I wouldn't want to restrict myself to only three stacks. On the other hand I wouldn't dare to claim it could reveal *all* underlying assumptions. [P] OK. > 2. The underlying assumption of your stacks is that all knowledge can be > divided into three parts -- things that happen in computers, things that > happen > without human observation, and things that happen as interpreted by humans. Nah, rather that the MoQ levels can be applied to those three stacks. The levels contain different patterns in those three stacks. [P] Hmmm. This is where I get lost. > 3. Your stack system does not reveal its underlying assumption. It doesn't > appear anywhere in the stacks. No, as I said, I didn't claim it would reveal all assumptions. The MoQ is still the metaphysics. I don't claim to replace that. [P] Your stacks "apply" to Pirsig's levels but do not "replace" his metaphsicis which, except of DQ, is all about the levels and the interplay of their static patterns.So it appears your stacks are metaphysical in nature, covering all reality. Thus my confusion. > Thanks for your continued patience. My ultimate question would be: "How is it > possible to exclude the human perspective from knowledge unless one is God?" Knowledge? Well, I think we must back up one step here. We can't *know* anything, I'd say. However, if we assume the MoQ, we *can* know all these things without having to be some god [P] What I meant to convey was that while you have isolated one of your stacks as the human perspective stack, the other two stacks are also the result of the human perspective. (I figure each stack is a stack of knowledge, i.e., intellectual patterns.) Further clarification would be appreciated if you have the time and patience. . Platt. . . 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/md/archives.html
