Greetings, Horse -- > Before we get into another pointless political debate about the > wonderfulness of the magnificent individual versus the marvelous > collective could we try and think about this maybe from a slightly > better perspective - i.e. mine! :) > > The term 'collective intelligence', IMO, is probably a misnomer in terms > of the MoQ as it, incorrectly, appears to conjoin social and > intellectual patterns.
First, I would suggest that questioning whether intelligence exists independently of man is an important philosophical concern, not a "political debate." I don't see that politics has anything to do with it. Also, can you tell me if Pirsig actually used the term "collective intelligence" in his writings? I don't recall seeing it in my perusal of ZMM and LILA. If he hasn't specifically cited it, perhaps the concept of an intellect-infused Quality is apocryphal. > It may be better to think of it as 'collective knowledge' which > can then be placed at the social level as patterns that accumulate > and persist over time within a social context. > All learned behaviours and other forms of knowledge that persist > from one generation to the next but are not transmitted by > biological means can now be neatly placed in this holder. I assume that by "biological means" you refer to whatever knowledge may be innate to the subject, such as "self-awareness" or value-sensibility. Transmitted knowledge may then be considered "objective" in that it is converted to the written or recorded word for interpretation by other subjects. In this way, knowledge becomes "universal intelligence". Although I understand "patterns" as existential relations, I can accept this epistemology because it doesn't reject the experiential source of knowledge (proprietary awareness) and basically makes the universal body of objective knowledge, as Micah more precisely defines it, "collected" as opposed to "collective". > Anything from how to crack an oyster open to the mangled > grunts that constitute primitive language can be included, > as can more complex language and whatever other social > patterns you choose to include. ... > Awareness and contemplation of these patterns gradually > gives rise to ordering and restructuring which leads to > intellectual activity and the emergence of the intellectual level. I agree, but only up to the point where you posit the emergence of an "intellectual level." That throws us back to square one. If the intellect is fundamentally the cognitive process of man's biological brain, and objective knowledge is what the individual transmits (non-biologically) to other individuals, where does this "level" (of DQ?) come from, and why is it necessary? As you know, I have never accepted the idea of a "communal reservoir" of intelligence. As far as we know, neither the physical universe nor ultimate reality is made of intelligence. Cognizant knowledge resides solely in the memory and intellectual awareness of the individual subject. Absent the subject and there is no intelligence. As I said to Ron: " 'insensible knowledge' is a meaningless absurdity." If what you call the "intellectual level" precedes man, it is clearly insensible. If it emerges from the "intellectual activity" of man, it is a human creation, and therefore cannot be primary in the sense that Quality is primary. In either case, the notion of an external Collective Intelligence is illogical. Sorry to have to disagree, Horse. I can and do accept Sensibility (esthesis) as an absolute, but not knowledge or intelligence which, like value-sensibility, are finitely differentiated (relational) attributes of being-aware. Essentially yours, Ham 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/
