[MD] Food for Thought

[Case]

[Ian]
The distinction between social and intellectual is so debatable, it's
"impossible" to define, you say. My point too.

So faced with that, I'm really only concerned to find a word (for the
purposes of discourse) that covers that combined socio-intellectual
level (and forget any internal distinction) ... I tend to use the word
"cultural"

[Case]
So I guess might overall point about the levels is so what? If we use the
MoQ as a tool to help us understand what is going on in a system I really
don't see how labeling levels adds much. If we looked at a hurricane for
example factors such as wind speed, air and water temperature, high and low
pressure systems will assist in predicting the path of the storm. These are
at the inorganic level but we are not interested in the level we are
interested in temperature, wind speed and air pressure. If the storm cause
destruction and death we are interested the logistics of delivering
services, the number of people affected, the costs of rebuilding, whether
these factors are social or intellectual is of little concern.

However, if we look at these individual factors what we see is that if the
temperatures of two air masses are sufficiently different and moving in a
particular relation to one another the situation becomes more dynamic. The
relative conditions of the air and water temperature factor in to tell us
something about the dynamics that could produce a storm in influence its
direction. The static facts interact dynamically. The same with the
aftermath. We are concerned with the static facts of amount of destruction,
displaced persons, death toll etc. It is seeing the situation in terms of
its static and dynamic components that is valuable. Lumping or splitting
these factors according to levels doesn't really add much.

[Ian]
I like your concept of "geometric" progression. The levels may not have
clear objective dividing lines, distinctions, definitions, whatever, but
some leaps are much more significant than simple "arithmetic" ones ....
sounds like Kuhnian paradigms.

[Case]
Still as Arlo points out in this instance the ability to manipulate symbols
is key. Written language is in fact spoken language made static. But it this
static quality of writing that leads to dynamic change.

As for Kuhn, I see his paradigms not so much as dogma but as a set of lens.
They shape how we view and understand a set of problems. As our
understanding grows, we may find we need a new prescription, bifocals maybe.
With our new specs we may actually come to realize that we see things more
clearly and as a result notice new problems we were previously unable to
even see. In seeking their solution we find that we need new lens and so
on... A paradigm shift is more like a trip to the optician then calling the
Council of Nicaea. 

[Ian]
"Geometric" .. says it is an operator acting on itself ... recursion /
Hofstader territory - self-reflective consciousnes IS the distinguishing
feature of the cultural (3/4) level from the merely biological / living (2)
level.

It is the feature that enables symbolic manipulation etc ...

[Case]
True dat. But coming from my recent forays into consciousness it is
important to add the consciousness emerges at those levels it is not
divorced from the underlying levels. Note that I am still will to use levels
as general pointers but I don't see them as fundamental.