Hi Ham You seem to have a problem with the idea that 'knowledge' can exist outside of the confines of the human being as it appears that you consider it a property of self-awareness. So try this on for size.
Knowledge - i.e. the formation and flow of information - can and is quite independent of what you are seeing as intelligence and self-awareness. Within the levels of the MoQ there are at least 3 different forms of knowledge. There is biological knowledge, social knowledge and intellectual knowledge. For the moment inorganic knowledge is irrelevant. Information is formed, stored and transmitted over time and space in all three of these levels but in qualitatively different ways. In addition, all these forms of knowledge are also dynamic - i.e. acted upon by DQ. It really is obvious when you look at it carefully and without prior assumptions. Ham Priday wrote: > 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. The political debate I was referring to was the usual one that springs up between Platt, sometimes yourself and various others when these kind of comments appear. I can spot it coming a mile off and wanted to calm it down before it started. We've been over it a hundred times and I wanted to try looking at the debate from a different angle. > > 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. Yeah - only he refers to it as social patterns of value. > >> 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. Nope. > 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". There are other sorts of knowledge than that which can be converted to the written word or even spoken language. > 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". Also, knowledge need have no connection with what I assume you mean by 'proprietary awareness'. Knowledge, as I said above is the formation and flow of information. >> 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. Not in my book - or either of Pirsig's come to that! > > 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. See, you're confusing intelligence and the flow of information again. You need to get past your pre-conceptions. Neither intelligence nor self-awareness are necessary for the existence of knowledge. > > As I said to Ron: " 'insensible knowledge' is a meaningless absurdity." No, it's an objective fact, if by insensible you mean not produced by what are commonly referred to as 'the semses'- i.e. sight, sound etc. as in humans or other similarly equipped creatures. > 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. Well you seem to be the one talking about collective intelligence. I quite clearly stated that it is a misnomer and that the term collective knowledge is more appropriate. You have made this mistake because you are unable to separate out intelligence from information flow or knowledge. > > 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. Well that's a problem for you to sort out Ham. As I said, knowledge and intelligence are separable. Knowledge is not attributable to either intellect or self-awareness although intellectual knowledge is perfectly acceptable along with biological knowledge and social knowledge. Cheers Horse 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/
