[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

SA, Gene, Steve, Platt, All,

I have been saying for a while that the basic principles of Pirsig's emergentist
model (indeed, ANY emergentist model) is that each level contains
"individuals", and it is through "collective activity" of these "individuals"
by which the next level "up" emerges.

>From the collective activity of individual atoms emerges the cell. Of course,
there are gradations, atoms do not directly create cells, but as the
ccomplexity of the artifict (product of collective activity) increases,
eventually it makes a jump from "more complex" to "whole new thing". Without
"collective activity" individual atoms would never become individual cells.

Restated, "individuals" on one level are the product of the "collective
activity" of "individuals" one level down.

Going up the scale, we come to the statement, "intellectual patterns emerge from
collective activity of social individuals". (This is, by the way, pretty
canonical for those adhering to a "social constructionist" Weltanschauung).

In thinking about Platt's claim (intellectual level is individual level), I
first fault him for a poor word choice. Atoms are "individuals" (on the
inorganic level). Cells are "individuals" (on the biological level). Human
bodies are "individuals" (again, on the biological level). I.e., ALL levels
contain "individuals". Indeed, my read of Pirsig would say that a correct
statement would be "The Law of Gravity is an "individual" on the intellectual
level". (The Law of Gravity, an individual on the intellectual level, emerges
from the collective activity of individuals on the social level).

But what Platt means, I gather, is that the "intellectual level" is the level of
"individual human consciousnesses". "Platt", "Arlo", "SA", these are all
"individual intellectual patterns". What struck me as odd today, as I sift
through some old papers, is how Foucaultian this position is. It is, of course,
well within the social constructionist school, but posits that "identity"
(individual human consciousness) is the result of collective social activity.

Shane Gannon, of the U. of Western Ontario, wrote a piece I found the web today
about Foucault's "social construction of identity". He writes, "By ceaselessly
reinventing ones own identity, and seeing the self as a continually changing
entity, one can escape the process of normalization and the effects of power
(Fraser, 1997, p. 29). Thus, through the individual’s interpretation of the
discursive nature of power and truth, agency can be seen in the social
construction of identity."

Here I see some direct correlation with Pirsig. "Identity", as it emerges from
social negotiation (dialogic social collective activity) seeks dynamic freedom
from the "normalization" and "effects of power" (static structures) on the
social level. Indeed, others have argued (not being a Foucaultian scholar,
maybe I can be corrected on this) that both "agency" AND "identity" are the
results of socially negotiation.

This, of course, supports the notion of "social mediation" between the
"individual human consciousness" and the "physical world". (SOMist thinking, I
gather, was the result of the "myth of independence" invented by the
intellectual level).

Of course, there continue to be problems. It is one thing to say "Platt is an
intellectual pattern" (meaning his consciousness, not his body) because it
seems localizable IN his physical body. But then what is "The Law of Gravity"?
It, too, is a pattern, but where does it reside? Can you point to it? This
perspective, I suppose, drops The Law of Gravity to a social level position.
Indeed, Foucault would argue just this. The "Law of Gravity", he'd say (again,
you Foucaultians can correct me if I am wrong) is part of the "normalizing" and
"power" structures of society. The "cultural milieu" is a form of symbolic
violence (to use Bourdieu's term), patterns that force conformity and
normalization in thinking. The "Law of Gravity" is no higher (morally) than the
"Speed Limit". Both serve to convey and reinforce societal and cultural
"norms", and to influence and control "individual human consciousnesses".

This, interestingly, could also be conveyed from this segment from ZMM.

"And what that means," I say before he can interrupt, "and what that means is
that that law of gravity exists nowhere except in people’s heads! It's a ghost!
We are all of us very arrogant and conceited about running down other people's
ghosts but just as ignorant and barbaric and superstitious about our own."

"Why does everybody believe in the law of gravity then?"

"Mass hypnosis. In a very orthodox form known as 'education.'"

"You mean the teacher is hypnotizing the kids into believing the law of
gravity?"

"Sure."

Thus education, the law of gravity, calculus, etc. are no longer "intellectual
patterns", but social patterns whose goal is to ensure conformity and
normalization of "individual human consciousnesses" (intellectual patterns).

Some outcomes of this hierarchy ("individual human consciousness" on top)
include the notion that "individual human consciousness" is not a product of
biology, but of social activity. Thus, there was a time when our "non-social",
but biologically similar, ancestors had "no consciousness" (or "no identity").
It was only through the beginning rudimentary beginnings of social activity did
the first seeds of "identity" or "individual human consciousness" emerge. This
view also presupposes that a human individual born on a deserted island, who
survives until adulthood but with NO other humans to interact with, will have
no identity, no consciousness, as this emerges not from biology, but from
society.

Just some thoughts, now off to battle the threat of rain clouds with a short
Harley ride in the valley.

Arlo