[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve, 

[Platt previously]
> > Steve's analysis is based on the premise that "we"
> > agree on certain 
> > undeniable truths, and that "we" can recognize
> > quality intellectual 
> > patterns when we see them. Except in the realm of
> > science and 
> > technology, these premises are arguable. My
> > neighbor's intellectual 
> > patterns are, for the most part, low quality to me.
> > After all he voted 
> > for crazy Al Gore and the guy whose name I've
> > forgotten who married the 
> > Heinz fortune.  
> 
> Steve:
> I can't see what this has to do with what I said. I
> never said that we all call the same statements
> "true," just that intellectual patterns can generally
> be  judged on a true-false scale and that that idea
> may be helpful in distinguishing social and
> intellectual patterns.  I wonder if you understood
> that but still wanted to take the opportunity to bash
> Democrats and hammer on about absolutes.

I was objecting to your statement that intellectual patterns can 
generally judged on true-false scale. My neighbor's assessment of the 
Democrat candidate for president is certainly an intellectual pattern, 
but can hardly be judged on a true-false scale with any possibility of 
wide agreement. Take another example: my English professor's 
interpretation of the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia is 
definitely an intellectual pattern, but it's truth or falsity is not 
provable. When it comes to critical opinion which makes up at least 
half of all intellectual patterns, the true-false dichotomy is up for 
grabs and thus of little consequence. Science and technology depend on 
on the true-false scale, but not all intellectual patterns fall in 
those realms. Trial courts also strive for a true-false assessment, but 
even there opinion plays a large role.          

As for bashing Democrats I assume you have the same negative opinion of 
those on this site who take every opportunity to bash Republicans.

> Steve: said:
> >"Society does not
> > equal
> > > the social level. Nor does it equal the values
> > that
> > > society perpetuates. The social level refers to a
> > type
> > > of pattern of value. I recognize this type of
> > pattern
> > > as those that are perpetuated through unconscious
> > > copying of behavior.  Biological patterns are
> > > maintained through DNA.  
> 
> Platt said:
> > Government is a social level value. Where is the
> > unconscious copying of 
> > behavior in that? 
> 
> Steve:
> (As far as I know it was Wim who first suggested that
> we may identify patterns of value by the way they are
> maintained/latched. I think his was a great idea that
> really clarified the levels for me. I just wanted to
> give credit where credit is due.)
> 
> For me government is far too broad a concept to place
> on a single level. I'm sure you admit that our
> Founding Fathers where engaged in intellectual
> activity when they created our government.  When
> government occurs at the point of a gun (as you like
> to remind us that it ultimately does) it is
> maintaining order in a biological way.

>From Pirsig's SODV paper describing the social level:

"The social patterns in the next box down include such institutions as 
family, church and government. They are the patterns of culture that 
the anthropologist and sociologist study." 
 
> I think you'd have to be more specific about the
> patterns of human behavior that you are referring to
> to be able to see if they are maintained through
> unconscious copying or by some other means.  
> 
> What distinguishes Government from ancient social
> patterns that maintained social and economic order in
> society prior to Government? Are we really talking
> about Law? Law has to be one of the greatest
> intellectual achievements (ideas) of all time. It is
> the idea that we can strengthen and stabilize social
> patterns that we like and elmininate social and
> biological patterns that we don't like by using
> intellect.

As far as I know, every social group has some form of government 
whether a Indian chief and his counsel of elders or a CEO and his board 
of directors. And every social group follows an ethos of right and 
wrong, whether enforced by informal sanctions or by law. 

> I also like the types of forces analogy for
> distinguishing the levels that I think you introduced
> me to years ago. Inorganic values are those that hold
> material thinks together. Biological values are what
> maintains life. Social values are the forces that hold
> a society to together, and intellectual values hold
> ideas together.

Did I say that? If so, I have to agree with myself. :-)

> Also, I never meant to throw "unconscious copying" out
> there as a definition of the social level or as the
> only way to think about how social patterns are
> maintained--just as a way that might be helpful for
> classifying patterns. I am aware that it isn't helpful
> for you, Platt.

It's difficult to pigeon hole the attributes of each of Pirsig's 
levels. I once tried to do it on the basis of subjects studied in 
school with physics at the inorganic, biology at the organic, social 
studies at the social and philosophy/logic/math at the intellectual. 
But, it didn't fly -- especially the intellectual part which (as argued 
above) includes a lot more than just the subjects listed. So far be it 
for me to determine what is helpful and what isn't. As you know, 
referring to the social level as the collective or "we" level, and the 
intellectual as the individual or "I" level, is the most helpful to me.

Regards,
Platt