[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[Arlo previously]
Wha..? When did I claim this? You're playing with me, aren't you? 

[Platt]
Quote from Arlo's post of June 10 8:28AM listed in the MD archive:

"I can take a picture of a city. In fact, I have several. Pirsig 
clearly says a "city" is a "social pattern"."

[Arlo]
This was said to show how YOUR statement that 'a picture of an ant colony proves
ants don't belong on the social level' is ridiculous. Why on earth you think
this is an "A Ha!" moment for you is beyond me.

[Platt]
I see nothing in the above Pirsig quotes about "increasing complexity." 

[Arlo]
Pirsig says "gets more sophisticated", I say "increasing complexity"...

Tell me, would say a "cell" is no more sophisticated (or complex) a biological
pattern as an "aardvark"? This is the point, there is gradations of complexity
within the levels, until as Pirsig says, "A primary occupation of every level
of evolution seems to be offering freedom to lower levels of evolution. But as
the higher level gets more sophisticated it goes off on purposes of its own."

Eventually, the biological level hit a level of complexity (sophistication) with
brains and bodies and the like, that the social level was able to emerge. The
social level could not have emerged from cells directly. It needed more
sophisticated biological patterns. When these crossed a threshold of
complexity, social patterns began to emerge.

Same with social-intellectual. Only when social patterns hit a certain level of
sophistication were intellectual patterns able to emerge. This is why I'd say
ant social behavior is too primitive for intellectual patterns to emerge from
it. Primate social behavior is sophisticated enough, I'd make the cautious
claim, that very simple intellectual patterns have emerged from it. Of course,
human social behavior is of such a high level of complexity-sophistication,
that quite sophisticated intellectual patterns have emerged therefrom.

Arlo