IN THIS POST BO TRIES TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH
HIMSELF OF WHAT HAVE SEDIMENTED THIS FAR AND HOW
IT RELATES TO HIS ORIGINAL TOPIC IDEA.
Jaap Karssenberg (Warmly welcome Jaap) wrote:
> > As far as I see there are two problems being discussed at the moment
> > first, the nature-nurture or free will-determenism if you like and
> > second the causation problem.
When Horse introduced it I didn't agree with the free
will/determinism being another aspect of the nature-nurture
questions. I said something about how - within the SOM frame of
references - there is no freedom in either option, it's a choice
between being a victim of upbringing or heritage.
I somehow wanted the MOQ counterpart to all this. Its alleged
subsumption of SOM under itself must present a totally different
approach to the N-N paradox. Much like the sun-centred
cosmology with one stroke made the mind-boggling Ptolemaian
one completely clear.
Roger agreed with this as I interpret him, and after proving the free
will to be an oxymoron he went on:
> The MOQ can come to our rescue though, for we are no longer just
> 'subjects', we are better defined as 'patterns of value'.
> Interestingly enough, I think you will agree that 'will' is a
> value pattern as well. Free will is hence defined as agreement
> between patterns of value. Free will is the consistency of our
> definitions of self and desire.
Yes, the MOQ comes to our rescue, but first: what is it that is
asked for in the SOM-derived nature-nurture question? Openly it is
if we are run by biological programs (instincts) or social programs.
This is denied by everyone who want to be regarded sane: we are a
product of both. But no sooner is this uttered before the "covert"
part of the question shows itself: these two are on different sides of
the S-O wall and cannot influence each other. One must be the
TRUE one the other a mere by-product.
Now if - like in the cosmology example - the shift to a sun-centred
view made the planetary movements the most natural thing, then
the SOM-derived nature-nurture impossibility must become
"natural" in the MOQ light, and it does so because the subject-
object "wall" no longer is.
But to follow the analogy: The once absolute up-down is still used
even if we know that it has no validity in a modern cosmological
context. What will the limited "nature-nurture" dualism, seen in a
MOQ cosmological sense, sound like?
Nature is equal to "objective" and that is inorganic and organic
according to Pirsig while Nurture is "subjective" and corresponds to
social and intellectual. Between these static levels there is no
insurmountable obstacle at all. Values may propagate up the static
ladder without jumping any chasm, and that is what they do getting
the respective level's colouring as they pass.
Let's examine a very plain example which is much used to prove
the "nature" case. Identical twins who have exactly the same
genetic equipment tend to have similar careers and experiences;
uncannily ones even. Marrying/joining similar looking partners and
having the same number of children ...even having the same
accidents!!!. But if one twin by chance is exposed to a totally
different social environment the nature theory breaks down, and the
nurture one seem to triumph, but the way the two balance each
other out cannot be found in the SOM .....by default.
But as said above it can in the MOQ. The question is how the
value propagation through the levels is to be explained without
reverting to a SOM way of thinking. The Jaap/Tor dialogue has
been worth listening to in this respect. I have had the pleasure of
sitting back for a few days enjoying it. I hope I am not too far off
when trying to summarize their progress.
Jaap started with the propagation as a causation problem and
mentioned Leibniz solution of God creating every possible
intermediate stage (reminds me of the "many-world- theory" of
quantum mechanics) something that Tor "repaired" by referring to
Pirsig turning the causation sock inside out by his "B values A".
He also suggested that any "impulse" that surfaces at the
intellectual end has to start at the inorganic level (any idea has to
have a neurological parallell [Re. Spinoza's psycho-physical
parallelisms!]) But at the inorganic level Tor postulates an initial
quantum (random) event as the "prime mover"...even if the passage
through the other levels are lesser 'quality events' too.
Jaap accepted this and launched into some highly interesting
considerations how
> a event on a certain level is created by the possibilities of
> the underlying levels (SQ) and DQ. The possibility of firing that
> other neuron is built in already in the biological level and the
> firing of a neuron is in turn built on inorganic possibilities, and
> so on.
and finally said:
> Let us stay with the example
> of the new thougt. Let us say a new thougt is inspired by reading
> something. That something as built from SQ but it's information is
> valued as DQ. But that DQ uses the possibility of our intellect to
> understand the new information, the possibility of our culture to
> (learn) read(-ing), the possibility of our brains to fire neurons, the
> possibility our brains exist and so on. Next you can say the event of
> firing that neuron is created by DQ and SQ in the form of
> possibilities. Since the 2nd level values the quality of higher levels
> as DQ this is the same as saying that the firing of that neuron is
> partly created by the 3rd/4th level. (now the "because" is replaced by
> "created" )
"A new thought from reading something" Finally the social level is
introduced in its own right. Tor had a tendency to consider a new
idea as springing from the biological (or was it the inorganic?)
realm in his neuron firing-thought example, but did not mention the
connecting level. The social reality sounds so trite, almost
embarrassing, but in the MOQ it is the source intellect springs
from.
Jaap ended thus:
> This is how I see it: DQ flowing trough the levels form the highest
> (active) level downward. I hope I made myself clear.
Yes, I agree - even if I find the speculations of how DQ and SQ
combines impossible to sort out (without sounding like a German
"geistwissenschaftliches" thinker :-)) or simply superflous. The
higher level sees itself as all things goal, and sends its tentacles
all the way to the bottom. Right now intellect - as subject-
objectivism - is the master and looks for the reason in its twin-
forked (nature-nurture [and free will-determinism]) fashion.
When the social level reigned it did not ask for any objective
reason, it only demanded subjection.
And if/when a non-S/O level establish itself, IT too will drop the
nature-nurture constellation.
If anyone has followed me this far. Thanks
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
