[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt,

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.          

The point I was trying to make has nothing to do with whether intellectual patterns really are true or really are false or are provable or can be widely agreed upon.  I'm just saying that an intellectual pattern is something that we can have a  conversation about with regard to it's truth or falsehood.  For example the intellectual pattern known as F=ma can be argued to be true or false where as the social pattern of motherhood can not be said to be true of false.

 
> 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." 
 
Pirsig also described intellect as simply thinking and as the manipulation of abstract symbols that stand for patterns of experience.  Are you saying that thinking is not a part of modern government?

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 think to understand the social level it is more about understanding that ethos that is acepted without reasoning and is perpetuated through unconscious copying. When we start to give reasons for our rules we are getting into intellect. Sometimes such reasoning is intellectual support for social patterns but the reasoning itself is intellectual.

Regards,
Steve

		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.