[MD] Social Imposition ?

[Ham Priday]

Arlo, Platt, SA, Case, Ian, Chin --

As far as I'm concerned, this entire debate is an "imposition" on our
intelligence.  It reminds me of the monastic mind-teasers of the Dark Ages:
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"  When you define reality
as so many fixed patterns, you force everything into a rubric made up of
labeled slots, and whatever doesn't fit a particular slot has to be
shoe-horned into it.

Why is all this necessary?   To make reality conform to Pirsig's emergence
theory of the collective, a theory which the author himself could not
adequately explain.

SA is the only one making any sense here:

> Ok, fine, you choose Pirsig's use of evolution here.
> I'm not denying this topic.  Yet, I am wondering.
> Since this thread is trying to clear-up intellectual and
> social levels, but Pirsig couldn't do it.  Pirsig tried to
> outline differences, but for some reason these
> differences have not been clarified enough for anybody,
> thus far, to notice distinctions.  Some have stated a
> problem exists.  Others have gone their own way,
> and the debate still goes on.

Ian began this thread on 12/15 by asking us to discuss a quantitive theory
of quality that looks as if it had been extracted from a physics textbook:

> "The quality of an intellectual pattern is inversley proportional
> to the level of effort (needed to be) imposed by society to
> maintain that pattern, (but is proportional to how widespread
> it is believed by free thinkers)."

In plain English, Ian wants to make the point that Society (i.e., mankind)
is the great "spoiler" of what you folks regard as Intellect.  The more
"thinking individuals" contribute to it, the less quality it has.  This has
to be the most preposterous defense of the Intellectual Level concocted to
date.

Do any of you really believe that there would be anything remotely
resembling Intellect in the absence of individual cognizance?

Then, on 12/18, Case enlightened us with this observation:
> As long [as] people were confined to talking amongst
> themselves and repeating tales around the campfire
> culture remained in a relatively primitive state.
> Culture really only became a significant force
> with the advent of writing.

Ignoring Platt's plea that credit should be given to somebody for this
invention, Case argues on a technicality: it was not "one" person, he
insists:
> Writing itself was not invented by any one person.
> It developed over thousands of years.

Well, so what?  It was developed by PEOPLE -- human beings with ingenuity
and a desire to record their experiences and thoughts for others to
evaluate.  Isn't that how culture advances?  After all, language and the
alphabet weren't floating around somewhere as DQ for humans to discover.
They had to be created and applied to parchment in order to communicate
information.  Guttenberg's press, which Case characterizes as "an
exponential shift in the process", was just one of a continuing series of
man-made inventions that have enhanced the use of language, thereby
accelerating man's access to information.

There was Henry Mill's typewriter (1714), Samuel Morse's telegraph (1835),
Alexander Graham Bell's telephone (1876), Edison's phonograph (1877),
Marconi's wireless telegraphy (1902), Deforest's triode tube (1906),
Zworykind's CRT (1923), Eckert & Mauchly's UNIVAC computer (1951), and
Robert Metcalfe's computer networking  (1973).  These are the names of major
technology leaders who, of course, worked with developmental teams in the
corporate world.  Without such human beings, or others with their expertise
and persistence, we would not have radio, television, computers, and the
Internet as communication tools.

Arlo's statement that "the entire process moves towards DQ" is an expression
of faith in a doctrine.  That human culture advances to better serve the
needs of mankind is an historical fact only for cultures that are free to
recognize the needs and reward the innovators.

Emergence?  Exponential shifts?  Are these words supposed to transfer the
inventiveness of man to some cosmic force that creates all these
technologies in his place?  I mean, let's be serious, gentlemen.  The only
"pattern" I can see as relevant to the history of human communication is the
one that appears on my TV set when the broadcast day is over.

Merry Christmas to All,
Ham