Re: MD Intellect

[RISKYBIZ9]

ROG TO MARCO AND BO ON WHETHER ART CAN SQUEEZE INTO INTELLECT (WITH A PS TO RICHARD) MARCO: So, going back to the "Human Rights" thread, Roger, when you write: � > Pirsig explains human rights as "tweeners" between the intellectual and > social. I would label such modern rights as "free speech" as > intellectually-influenced social patterns. �They concern social contracts of > how people are treated and allowed to interact -- a classic example of a > social pattern -- albeit an intellectually influenced one I answer that the "Human rights" you are talking about are "entities". Take for example the freedom of speech. It's obvious it's social, and it's also obvious it's intellectual. When this right is discussed as fundamental basis for�the intellectual diffusion of ideas, it's interacting with an intellectual environment; when it's applied during a trial, it's interacting with a social environment.I call "patterns" the models used to explain those interactions. � Of course, you have noticed that I often refer to these entities as being intellectual, or social, or whatever else.� Doing it, I want to evidence the possible environmental interaction which is IMO more important. Of course the freedom of speech is social and intellectual, but IMO its intellectual aspect has more relevance than any other aspect. ROG: I characterize it as a social condition which contributes to and is affected by the intellectual level. Pirsig always refers to it as between the levels.   � � MARCO: IMO the solution is in�the first words of this post. If I�put the focus on the brain's functionality, of course I consider�communication, or pattern identification, as biological. But if I consider�how ideas, science, technology and arts interact each other in the intellectual environment (by the mean of messages made of signs�), I'm looking at the intellectual interaction. The message is indepent by the biological brain. I will sadly die, but this post could survive after me, and interact with your intellect exactly like if I was alive. This simple fact is IMO the proof that message is not biological. ROG: I agree that language (abstract messaging with shared verbal or written signs) is not biological.  We are in total agreement here.  I would say that it is probably social though.  I could be wrong though (what's new?) so, please argue back with me on this one. Children, Cro-Magnon's and "savages' all have, or had, effective and complex language. Certainly language presupposes some type of primitive society (to paraphrase Popper), but considering its roots into antiquity, it seems to miss any of the characteristics of an intellectual pattern. MARCO:� > meaning (or significance) exists > when intelligence "defines" the perceived value by the use of signs in order > to share it socially. For example, the cat feed has an high biological > value, �but no "meaning", to my cat. ROG: > I used to have a cat that would run from anywhere in the house into the > kitchen every time I used the electric can-opener. �To the cat, that sound > MEANT "feeding time" as we fed it canned cat food. �The cat couldn't read or > use language, but it could detect patterns and it could communicate. You've > heard of "Pavlov's dog," this is "Roger's cat."� MARCO: I love pets, so I don't want to deny them the possibility of�being intelligent. So I change the subject.�The water has a biological value for�a tree, but no "meaning".�OK NOW?� :-) ROG: No, it isn't.  I cannot argue for a tree, but I think "meaning" does exist for advanced mammals. I think biological creatures can identify patterns.  I think communication involves social interaction between biological patterns, and language involves abstracted social communication.  My point is that I think you will run into troubles building a coherent metaphysics where either meaning or language is primarily intellectual (again, ICBW) MARCO:� Then you offer a long description of Intellectual level. I'm sorry, I didn't read it with enough depth, so I don't comment for now. Hope tomorrow. I just say that I've the impression that you are valuing only the "rational" side of human brain, and leave secondary the "intuitive" side. I discussed it two days ago�on MF. Your position, that is very common on this forum,�contains the risk of forgetting the "best" part of our mental possibilities.� ROG: Intuition and creativity are metaphors for DQ in action.  They are not part of the level of static patterns. � MARCO: I can't imagine ART being less than intellectual. I can't imagine Picasso being less than Einstein. One possibility is the fifth level, but I'm very negative about it. We don't need it. IMO the best view is�to consider ART and SCIENCE being two wonderful intellectual possibilities. If only we�could enlarge this�poor vision of intellect...... � ROG: I don't know that it is less.  I think Platt and Pirsig think that it is greater. To be honest, I don't know yet. It does not seem to me intellectual at all. I think forcing it into this level demeans art.  If forced to make a guess though, I would say that PAINTING and DRAWING are social.  Art is the creative, intuitive undefineable aspect of these that can drive painting and drawing forward.  Art is DQ. (Again, ICBW) ROGER ==> 1) Patterns are simplifications derived from the complex stream of experience. All life attends to and selects and simplifies experience into those patterns of most importance. Moving black dot = food for a frog. Electric can opener sound = food for my cat. MARCO ==> Not only life, I guess. The inorganic world also "simplifies experience" and behaves according to patterns. But if you are using "life" also for the inorganic level, we agree. ROG: I do not know of any examples that inorganic reality simplifies experience. Certainly, there are inorganic simplifications that we identify, but we are alive.  I would say this is a characteristic of biological, social or intellectual patterns only. ROGER ==> 2) The intellectual processes known as science, logic, math, philosophy, etc. are the systematic processes of discovering, creating, or testing patterns. These processes were developed out of society and refined through the combined learnings of some of the greatest minds of all time, including Aristotle, Galileo, Kepler, Descartes and Popper. (Unfotunately, until recently they have tended to follow SOM to the core) MARCO ==> OK. I agree on your list of processes, but it's the "etc." which can be a little problem. If I add to your list of minds also Pablo Picasso, do you agree? (more about Art and Picasso below) ROG: Nope, I think he was an artistic painter/ drawer, not an artistic intellectual. Or, perhaps he was JUST an ARTIST. ROGER ==> 3) Intellectual patterns are those that have been created and "proven" via these systematic intellectual processes. MARCO ==> Intellectual patterns created by intellectual processes. A tautology. Of course true, but it doesn't add a lot, here. ROG: Again I differ.  I think this is a critical point.  I am saying that intellectual patterns are those that are derived via a particular methodology.  The difference between a thought and a scientific theory is one of methodology (as listed below). Methodology is the key. BTW, I didn't see where we disagreed on the interaction of intellectual and other patterns, so I have skipped to: ROGER ==> Note that the intellectual level is directly related to the pattern forming process and the systematic ART of distinguishing the Quality of a pattern. What distinguishes a good pattern? Below are some of the commonly recognized features of good intellectual/scientific theories: SIMPLIFICATION -- One key characteristic is in its ability to SIMPLIFY -- to compress data into a usable form. VERSATILITY -- Another quality is a pattern's VERSATILITY. For example, how many different ways can a pattern be used? TRUTH -- truth "is one species of good" that involves a pattern's correlation with experience and other patterns. In the famous words of James: "Realities are not true, they ARE; and beliefs are true of them." Intellectual patterns also need to correlate with other theories or other intellectual patterns. MEASURABILITY/TESTABILITY -- Another characteristic of a good intellectual pattern is its testability. Good theories are usually measurable, quantifiable and falsifiable. RELEVENCE -- James calls this pragmatism, and built an entire philosophy around it. MARCO ==> I agree on Occam's razor and so on.... You offer a perfect description of western science. But where is the evidence that western science is the whole intellect? IMO this is only an assumption (btw, you are not far from Bo's SOLAQI). ROG: Western science, logic, math and philosophy.  Yes, this is clear from even a casual reading of the book. Pirsig's examples in Lila of the intellectual level are TRUTH, SCIENCE, METAPHYSICS, POSITIVISM, SOCIOLOGY, PROVISIONAL SCIENCE, TEHNICALLY TRAINED ANALYTIC MINDS, THE SOCIALISM DERIVED FROM HEGEL AND MARX, INTELLECTUAL PLANNING, THE THEORY CLASS, etc. (page #'s are available upon request) In addition, he speaks of President Wilson and his intellectual advisers as being at the forefront of the new level.  And he mentions that "intellectuals follow science" and that the level has foundations that "predate philosophy and science." Granted he does mention human rights in two places, but in both cases it is not about the intellectual level, but upon its influence on society. As for SOLAQI, there are some parrallels, but Bo believes that the level IS Subject/object metaphysics.  Pirsig of course points out (repeatedly) that the intellectual level, though the most moral, has a clear defect which he remedies via the MOQ.  Pirsig considers the MOQ part of the intellectual level. Overall, I think that I may draw the line slightly differently between the levels than Pirsig does, but I am at a loss to recognize any differences that are material.  Please let me know what I am missing, and let me know how your ideas mesh with this list. (After all, ICBW) MARCO: For example, I already offered in the past the example of Picasso's Guernica. I can learn from that about the Spanish war more than from any scientific description. The state of mind of people immersed in the tragedy of a war is REAL, and it's expressed (explained and communicated) better by means of a single picture than by means of tons of simplified-versatile-testable scientific studies. ROG: Odd, I had never even known that that was what Guernica was about.  But seriously, I agree that art, novels and movies can express emotion and tragedy and the human perspective much better than science.  Much , much better.  But that doesn't affect this discussion, as these are not the tests of an intellectual pattern. MARCO: And my intellectual philosophical beliefs about war, socialism, fascism, justice... can be strongly influenced by that picture (or by a movie, a novel, and so on). Sometimes with more effectiveness than any scientific or philosophical book. ROG: I don't doubt this.  You are human, not a cold automaton. I still have not fully categorized art yet, but neither could Pirsig.  He didn't put it into the static level of the intellect though. (the most dynamic or moral of the static levels). ROGER ==> IN SUMMARY: The intellectual level concerns a systematic methodology to create better and better patterns out of reality. It also applies to the patterns that are derived through this process. MARCO ==> Firstly, for what I wrote above, IMO the creation of better and better patterns out of reality is not exclusively intellectual. It has been so for millennia (and maybe it is still) also at the other levels. ROG: Agreed.  Each has a different evolutionary or emergent process.  The scientific method is just the value process of this level. I am working now on a lengthy paper to explain this called Positive sum quality.  IMO every level emerges via a self amplifying feedback process. More to follow in a few months. MARCO: Secondly, the Picasso example I offered challenges you to find how is it possible that my intellect is influenced by art. Both in your and Bo's assumptions, Picasso is a Platypus. ROG: And Pirsig's.  That is why I think he put it into "Dynamic morality". I suggest you follow his example rather than forcing it into a level where it doesn't belong.   MARCO: My attempt is to glimpse a possible development of intellect out of the trap of scientific method. In order to complete it: I'm not the enemy of intellect (like Bo seems to be), I'm just arguing that what you are calling intellect is only the first step of something that has unexploited possibilities. ROG: Logic and science only take you so far.  DQ is Pirsig's solution.  Intuition and that unexplainable brilliance. MARCO: After all, science has been mainly developed during the social age, and intellectual patterns have been selected in order to survive in a precise social environment. That's why science is very good to build bridges, while it's a disaster to describe my state of mind. ROG: Pirsig explains some of this as a defect of western thought, which refuses to deal with the "subjective".  I certainly can't solve every problem of western science in this post though.  Could you give me a few weeks?  Don't try forcing art into science though.  I suspect you will denigrate art. MARCO: Maybe you are like the biologist of the paleozoic age which argues that multicellular life is the best possible form of evolved biology. My attempt to put aesthetic-artistic patterns within the same frame of scientific-methodologic-rational patterns points to the (maybe utopic) purpose of an intellect which is able to provide both knowledge and beauty. ROG: Maybe you are like Woogie Wooganowski in "Something About Mary."  In other words, perhaps you are engaged in a very unhealthy obsession. But then again, I could just be silly Rog PS -- Richard, you have defined Intellectual values as "The values concerned with ensuring the freedom of flows of ideas and trade within a political system without hostile intrusion by other intellectual, social, organic or inorganic values."  I think your definition involves several important valuesof intellectual patterns (ie freedom from authority) but then you apply them to social organizations.  Read Karl Popper.  His "3rd world" matches up virtually identically with Pirsig's intellectual level.