[MD] Transhumanism

[Mary]

Hi Ron, Bo, and all,

> Bodvar:
> > > The proverbial in-out metaphysical turn that made SOM into the
> static
> > > intellectual level also robbed it of the authority to make morals
> > > "subjective", on the contrary its subject/object distinction became
> a
> > > moral subset.  So it's possible to defend intellect and attack
> SOM.
> 
> Ron:
> > I'd like to know how you seemingly place the s/o distinction on the
> > biological level then claim that it IS the intellectual level.
> 
> > can you answer this?

> Bodvar:
> Where do I place the S/O distinction on the biological level?  I think
> it's
> Mary and I haven't yet figured out her assertion. 


[Mary Replies] 
Hindsight is a powerful tool.  Once the pattern was established that said
life forms were going to be discrete functional units as opposed to
something else (and, no, don't ask me what because I don't know), the die
was cast and all else follows pretty much inevitably.  With
life-as-discreteness as the starting point, you can see how, slowly, step by
step, greater complexity accreted to this beginning in synergistic support
of the whole.  As an aside, I think you really can make a good argument that
life was destined for the "discreteness" model by virtue of the big bang,
and you could say, at the risk of sounding like a clock-work universe
Newtonian, that the big bang set in motion a logical chain of events that's
lead to me writing to you today.  And if you think about it some more,
you'll likely decide that whether you ascribe to the subject-object model or
the pattern-of-values model since the end result is going to be pretty much
the same.  

Anyway, back on the subject at hand, if there is value in being a discrete
living entity, then it behooves you to have a brain to go with it that 1)
recognizes your distinctness from all else, and 2) values that distinction;
and this, "My dear, Scarlett", is the much maligned subject-object
distinction in a nutshell.  Living creatures have all had one through time
immemorial and it has nothing much to do with intellect, though it does make
use of it.  

In a world of limited resources, where competition is inevitable and biology
seems to pretty clearly value greater complexity, you can see how ego is
then also inevitable.  And boy did Scarlett have one!  Now Rhett had one
too, of course, but the difference was that he knew it whereas hers was so
powerful it wouldn't even allow her see it.  So even though Rhett is cast as
the more dangerous, scoundrelly character, we all realize instinctively that
Scarlett is really the one to watch out for.  Need I trace out how it is
that once you value yourself and you mix that with a few million years of
slowly increasing mental complexity in a world of limited resources, you
sooner or later arrive at the city-state, despots, the bronze-age,
agriculture, and religion?

Which brings me to aside number two (sorry) where I wonder how our world
would be different if resources had never (from the single-celled beginning
onward) been limited?  What if the biological drive toward complexity
existed but the constraints of limited resources did not?  Who would we be?
What would our social level have been like if there was no need for
competition?

But geez, Mary, didn't anybody ever tell you how you're supposed to consider
your audience when you write stuff?  "Gone With the Wind" was the ultimate
chick-flick and when my wife/girlfriend/significant-other made me watch it I
discovered much too late that the sum-bitch was 4 hours long!  When am I
supposed to take a leak or get another beer?  Missed half the Lakers game
and there were no boobs and only ONE cuss word.  Was that some Hollywood
idea of a joke?

Ok, so that counts as aside number three and I almost took it out, but hey,
don't tell me you didn't think it too.

I'm just saying that if you make a sweep with your binoculars back over the
billenia of biology you can see how subject object logic brought us all the
way to Atlanta without a hitch.  But that's not the Intellectual Level.  It
just has plenty to say about where it came from.

Look, the Intellectual Level is just the next logical step.  If the Social
Level was man's response to the problem of competition for limited resources
in the Biological world, then the Intellectual is just man's response to the
problems of oppressive beliefs imposed in the Social one.  The Intellectual
Level took the "metaphysical sock" of Social Level restrictions and turned
it inside out and used the whole Social Level concept of belief systems
against itself.  The Intellectual Level became separated from the Social at
the point where it took the Biological/Social assumption of discreteness and
proclaimed it to be all there is.  It was the new metaphysical twist that
said the subject-object world we perceive really IS all there is and it is
good - and not just good, but the only good.  And if any group before had
ever said, "no it's not" (which Pirsig says there were and they did), then
they were proclaimed wrong by this new Intellectual "freedom" which shifted
the world under our feet and declared boldly otherwise.

Lest you get the wrong idea, I'm not saying anything about my own value
judgments here, I'm just pointing out that at the time, the advent of the
Intellectual Level had to have been a refreshing relief for all those closet
religious doubters who were daily persecuted, the early scientists who
wanted to learn how things "really" worked as opposed to how God said they
worked, and all those oppressed by the tyranny of inherited rather than
earned privilege, caste, or rank.  The Intellectual Level sought to erase
the inherent fallacies of the Social, and it worked pretty well.  For the
first time it gave us a metaphysical basis from which to combat the
insidious malaise of Social celebrity, unfairness, illogical "magical"
thinking and all sorts of other Social stuff like that all in one fell
swoop.

But it had its downside.  If you are daily suffering under the yoke of
social repression that prevents you from expressing freedom of thought or
freedom of action, or says that your social status is determined by some
arbitrary decision made by people who are arbitrarily powerful, then the
tenants of the Intellectual Level are a godsend.  You now have a coherent
belief system upon which to base opposing arguments.  But this belief system
proved to be an incomplete solution and turned out to result in a new and
different mental prison all its own. I shall explain.

If you no longer believe that God has moral authority then that authority
falls to man.  Maybe that's a good thing, but if it defaults to man, then
moral authority is just whatever you say it is, and if you combine that with
another Intellectual tenant that says we are all created equal, then there
is no moral authority at all.  My morals are just as valid as yours.  

If you no longer believe the world was created by an omniscient creator for
your benefit, and you fail to replace that belief with something else, the
world _must_ be nothing more than the subjects and objects you see.  This
approach has benefits.  You can do science and expect predictable,
non-arbitrary results, but it also means you've raised the value of the
objective world to the equivalent of 'the good'.  If there is nothing else,
yet you are aware of a sense of 'betterness', then 'the good' must be a
quality that inheres in the object.  The object has quality.  Quality does
not have the object, and as we all know, it's all down-hill from there. 

Both the Social and the Intellectual Level, then, can be seen as differing
metaphysical belief systems, differing 'patterns of value', and I would
submit that beginning with the Social Level, differing metaphysical
world-views of this sort were and will continue to be the engine driving the
formation of themselves and any new levels which may be to come.

That Bo insists the MoQ, while 'of' or spawned by Intellectual Values is not
one itself, is because he is following Pirsig's model.  It says this.  A new
level germinates within its parent, but as it matures it can be seen in
hindsight to come into conflict with the values of its parent; and when it
does, and when it has achieved sufficient static latching to persist, it can
be seen to constitute its own separate set of patterns of value.  As Pirsig
says, these are always in conflict with the values of the parent, seek to
oppose and dominate it, yet clearly depend upon it for existence.  In this
context, The MoQ can clearly be seen as such in its relationship with the
Intellectual.

Best,
Mary