[MD] Just coincidence?

[Heather Perella]

Arlo and Peter,

     I went back to read both of your postings that
have been discussing what I find pertinant to what I
am about to say as follows:

     Arlo said:  "* I should note here, that I think
Pirsig's hierarchy is overly simple when one thinks
that "social individuals" emerge from cells. There are
other "intra-level" organizations that occur first,
using the same principle (molecules to cells, cells to
tissue, ... all the way up to the human body, which is
really a biological collective of other, but lesser,
biological collectives. That is, we don't jump right
from inorganic patterns to human bodies. There is,
say, "gradation" within the levels."

     This talk of Pirsig levels is similar to the
'hierarchy of levels' by Stephen Jay Gould.  He did
not like the cultural assumption that hierarchy means
that 'higher' levels mean superior levels.  He was a
proponent of 'relative frequency'.  Germs have been
around longer on earth than human beings, and there
are more germs than humans, thus, who are we to say
germs are less superior than humans.  Yet, his book,
"The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" goes into great
depth on these levels.  From quantum level, to cell,
to individual (organism), to groups of individuals, to
large populations of individuals, to cultures, to
species, and so forth.  I skipped some of the
intra-level organizations that he touches upon.  I
don't have the book with me now, but in either case,
to even comment upon his exegesis could take
deca-pages, as it did for him.  
     Something I do remember is he said, as Pirsig did
(which I makes me wonder if Gould mentions Pirsig
because of their similarity in thinking), is that the
levels are independent, yet, dependent upon other. 
Each level works on its' own terms, yet, Gould says
neutral emergence's from one level to another can
occur.  These neutral 'things' in time grow stable in
the new level, but are out of the scope of that levels
positive or negative deciding factor as to whether
that neutral 'thing' stays or goes.  In time though
this neutral 'thing' will become influential and thus,
within the scope of that levels selection factors, and
since the neutral 'thing' has a foothold in that level
it now has a chance to live or die within that level. 
These neutral 'things' were given brand new words
identified by Gould such as spandrels.  He talks of
emergence and contingency (historical context).  He
mentions other inter-level actions, too.  
     One example I found on a website states, "Gould
also became interested in distinguishing incidental
features from adaptive ones. He coauthored (with
Richard Lewontin) an influential paper inspired by the
spandrels of certain medieval cathedrals: Geometric
architectural features decorated with impressive
religious paintings. While art historians had analyzed
their distinctive aesthetic, most had forgotten the
spandrel's humble origin as an unavoidable engineering
consequences of stress distribution—a structural
byproduct of constructing that kind of dome. As a
biological example, Gould points out that the human
chin, often cited as "advanced" in comparisons with
"lower" primates, holds no special correlation with
higher intelligence. It is, like the spandrels, an
incidental result of stress and growth factors in the
human jawbone."  
         
(http://www.stephenjaygould.org/biography.html) 
     These spandrels that sneak into the picture of
existence are what, in time, may not be something as
neutral as a chin.  In time, who knows what may become
of chins if they are given the FREEDOM to do as they
wish without any kind of selective influence.   
     Gould did not go into cultural levels as much as
biological levels, because that was not his forte. 
Though, he did comment upon it, gave some example, and
left it as an option to others who would be able to
provide more data and thus, information to this level
from their expertise experience from their particular
field of focus (philosophers, anthropologists,
sociologists, humans (anyone who gives thought to such
things).  I typed in:  'Stephen Gould hierarchy of
levels' on yahoo and got some useful hits that may be
able to explain more about these levels that are
defined, as I think about, with no deviations (or
major ones since I didn't or can't think of any at
this time) from Pirsigs.
     If Pirsig and Gould were not aware of each others
thinking directly, than Gould, as Pirsig, would say it
is the 'thinking of the day', the 'current cultural
mindset', Pirsigs' 'mythos'.  This paradigm fits in
with Thomas Kuhns philosophy of how society/culture
influences even the scientist (the individual
intellect).
     Here's another similarity.  Gould's punctuated
equilibrium (scientific word), and the thought that
would support it, well:  punctuated (where a quicker
change is taking place after a longer unchanged
equilibrium), thus, punctuated (dynamic quality
influencing to the point of obvious, apparent change)
equilibrium (a static quality not changing, thus, the
pattern is the same).  In the fossil record it would
be a species stays unchanged, then suddenly
(geologically speaking) a new species emerged from the
previous species and thus, appears in the fossil
record suddenly after the long lull in which the
previous species lived unchanged.  Here is a merger of
philosophy and science.  The thought behind the action
for humanities sake of understanding, since thought
(intellect) comes into play for us in this universe.
 

SA 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com