[MD] Patterns At War

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

Everybody

Changed the title. See comment below

> Chris:
>> It's true that they don't always need to be in direct conflict, for 
>> example
>> I'd say that the development of the early-modern state is an example of 
>> how
>> intellectual and social structures were "working together" and both
>> benefited. However, the different levels is, at the core, different ways 
>> of
>> viewing/manifest quality - right? Your example isn't in conflict with
>> anything.

[Magnus]
> Sure it is. It's in direct conflict with your (and Bo's) claim that
> symbols are only social value.

Oh, come now. This is just nonsense. It still isn't in conflict with 
anything within a MOQ context. We will keep getting back to this.

> Chris:
>> In a way even, we could say that the wolfs reaction to a certain
>> scent is the same thing as someone recognizing an arrow symbol. Or, take
>> tigers (or whatever) who claw marks into trees, when other tigers see the
>> marks they recognize that there is another tiger about who claims the 
>> area.
>> How is that really different from symbol manipulation? At the base I 
>> mean.

> That's right, at the base of each level, it's hard to tell what is what.
> The higher level must first find something it can use for it's own
> purposes, and in this case, the intellectual level found the static
> language developed by a society.
>
> Take the development of the spoken word. At first, it was simply
> different sounds that triggered a certain feeling in the listeners. A
> high pitched "Hoo hoo" means danger, adrenaline starts pumping and
> everyone runs for their lives. But when intellect starts interfering, it
> used the ability to make sounds and turned it into a dynamic way to
> convey meaning. *That's* the crucial difference between social language
> and intellectual language. Intellect de-couples the static link between
> the social "symbol" and the biological knee-jerk reaction. This feat is
> a far more dynamic step than the ability to rationalize about the S/O
> division.

> Chris:
>> This definition of the intellectual level as " symbol manipulation" makes 
>> it
>> possible to strech it out forever. It becomes pointless.
>
> Not pointless at all. Try to imagine a reality in which we were still
> bound by those static links between social "symbols" and biological
> knee-jerk reactions. We'd still be living in trees.

About all of this. Evolution happens within each level as well - indeed, 
that's mostly where it happens. New levels develop very rarely, and the fact 
that the static biological patterns evolve to such a sophisticated level 
that they (within a social level frame perhaps)  can handle advanced symbol 
manipulation doesn't say anything about the big picture. There still isn't a 
trace of a  level conflict, and that needs to be there for it to be a MOQ 
level.

Chris