[MD] Arlo's Rant and 3rd levels

[Ham Priday]

Krimel --

I must compliment you for posting one of the clearest expositions of
epistemology that I've seen.  While I disagree with most all of it, I 
appreciate that you clarified your position (and perhaps Pirsig's) in 
response to my comments without acrimony, a comportment that Arlo would do 
well to imitate.

[Ham]:
> I find it difficult to understand how the human intellect arises
> out of society (which is non-human and precedes it).

[Krimel]:
> In fact Pirsig, mistakenly I think, asserts that the social level is
> entirely human as well. In any case humans are also made of
> inorganic stuff and biological stuff but these realms are not
> exclusively human as are the social and intellectual.

All living organisms are made of inorganic and biological stuff, but such
stuff is not the essence of cognizant awareness

> But here is how intellect might arise out of society.
> Human social responses are ours by virtue of our
> evolutionary heritage. Primates in the main are social
> creatures and part of being a social creature is interacting
> with others. From most members of the primate family
> the expression and the understanding of the expression
> of emotion suffices. The physiology of emotion is
> communicated through outward signs that are linked to
> the emotional experience of the individual.  Smiling,
> frowning, open and closed body posture, the pitch of
> vocalizations; these are all signals arising from and
> pointing to the emotional tate of con-specifics.

All of that is true.  However, it speaks of social responses -- observed
"behavior" as opposed to subjective awareness.  Even your analysis of
emotional experience and communication is treated as exhibited gestures
rather than as conscious feelings of the participants.  It dismisses
proprietary sensibility altogether.

> As our species evolved these emotional expressions
> became increasingly more elaborate. Our primary adaptation
> is increased brain mass. We have about three times the
> cortical tissue as our nearest relative. We have every reason
> to suppose that this increased neural functions to preserve
> past experience. It expands memory. Prior to this expansion
> of memory in neural form most memory was preserved in
> the form of DNA or genetic code. In humans this hard coded
> memory becomes secondary to neutrally coded memory and
> the experience of the individual.
>
> As our ancestors evolved the ability to recall greater and
> greater expanses of their own personal history, we became
> unstuck in time. We were not confined to the immediate
> instant. Our past, encoded in memory allowed us to
> live in other moments and to compare and contrast the past
> with the present.

Again, this is an anthropological perspective of man "as a social creature"
based on evolutionary (genetic) history that ignores psychic development and 
the metaphysical relation of self to other.  It suggests that "memory is 
preserved in DNA code" and that primitive man lacked recall to compare past 
and present, neither of which has scientific substantiation.

> I suspect that this process of becoming unstuck in time allows
> for the taking of multiple perspectives, which is what Tomesello
> talks about. As he claims, language seems to grow out of this
> ability to appreciate and share multiple perspectives.
>
> There really cannot be an intellectual "level" without some means
> of encoding and decoding the past.

That's a highly speculative assumption which, even if it could be verified, 
is no reason to dismiss subjective awareness.  The knowing "I" of 
consciousness is so basic and self-evident to each of us that the attempt of 
philosophers to avoid it is incredulous to me.

> It really is not possible for later events to dominate earlier
> events.  This would involve some kind of time paradox,
> as in the case of the new Star Trek movie which seems to
> be taking us into an alternative time line. Events preceding
> each other is what we call the passage of time. Evolution is
> an account of how and why present circumstances result
> from the processes of the past.

But what does this "account" avail us in the life experience?  How do we as 
sentient beings benefit morally, spiritually or psychologically from 
knowledge about the evolution of the inanimate universe?  What meaning or 
purpose is implied for man in an automatic process that is indifferent to 
his needs and values?

[Ham]:
> Intellection is something individuals do, socially or by themselves.
> It's the analytical function of conscious awareness, not a repertory
> of knowledge hanging around in the social milieu waiting for
> people to latch onto it.

[Krimel]:
> Intellection seems to be a word you made up, for reasons known
> only to you 'cognition' is not good enough.  But nevermind that
> for a second, the intellectual level IS indeed "a repertory of
> knowledge hanging around in the social milieu waiting for people
> to latch onto it."
>
> Emotional expression is encoded genetically and is sufficient to
> improve the reproductive success of most mammals (emotion is
> a uniquely mammalian adaptation).

What evidence do you have that supports this?  Do reptiles, fish and birds 
not
feel emotion?  The neurology of emotion should not be confused with 
emotional expression.  Again, this is something immanently sensed  or "felt" 
by the creature, not a "behavior pattern" stored in the genes.  I disagree 
entirely with this objectivist concept.

> As our species evolved language as an elaboration of
> emotional expression, we became better able to share
> not only joint experiences of the present but distant
> experiences of the past. We began to tell stories around
> the fireside. Those stories became "common knowledge".
> All societies at some stage in their history rely on an oral
> tradition to preserve the shared memories of the past.
> ...As such it can survive much longer than the life span
> of the individual who encoded it.

You continue to describe the thought process as a collective phenomenon, 
whereas conceptualization, analysis, and valuation are functions of 
individual awareness.  "Encoding" history and intelligence is something 
computers can do.
Unlike electro-mechanical devices, man is cognizant of his reality and the 
values
that arouse his emotions.  I submit that subjectivity is what man's 
existence is about, and objective reality is his creation.

[Ham]:
> I'd say that experience is acquiring knowledge,
> which is not possible without thought.

[Krimel]:
> This is just factually wrong. Many times the experience of
> individuals changes their future repertoire of responses
> without any thinking at all. Insects and fish can be classically
> conditioned. This is where experience modifies even
> autonomic responses. Procedural memory occurs when
> we learn a new skill like chipping stone into tools, weaving
> or riding a bicycle.  None of these require thought, at least
> not language mediated thought. In fact in this sense perhaps
> MOST knowledge is acquired without thought.

What about individual freedom and the realization of value that are unique 
to human beings?

> Quality in the sense that it is a "sense" or as I prefer to
> think of it a "sense of senses" is not the product of individual
> experience. It is genetically encoded. The experience of our
> ancestors tells us what is good and what is bad for us.
> We are hardwired to like some things and dislike others.
>
> Sensation is certainly the essence of awareness in that
> awareness is the result of parallel processing. Awareness is
> the synthesis of diverse sensations. When those diverse
> sensations are integrated and placed alongside the stored
> recollections of previous experience, perception gives rise
> to conception. We begin to abstract the common features of
> the past and relate them to the present as guides to the future.
>
> Essence is nothing more than the set of common features of
> past events encoded as concepts.
>
> While encoding and decoding are certainly unique to
> individuals, we are as a species, makers of meaning.
> But code whether it is genetically, linguistically or artistically
> rendered is not dependant on any single individual. In fact
> each individual is entirely dependent on the code itself.
>
> I think that man is the "measurer" of all things. In the
> process of measuring we construct an anthropocentric
> universe. After all we only care about those things that
> relate to us as individuals. But to claim that the universe
> itself is somehow dependant on MAN...well that's just vanity.

[Ham]:
> What is metaphysically meaningless is a transitional universe
> in which man is an irrelevant byproduct -- a universe that arises
> from nothingness and "moves toward betterness" for its own purposes.

[Krimel]:
> The first part of your statement is indeed hard to swallow
> but hardly "meaningless". It means a great deal to understand
> that we are products of the processes of the "universe" not the
> reason for it or cause of it. This is painful to accept. But so far
> every attempt to explain this away just dissolves into self pity
> or self adulation. The frank acknowledgement that the universe
> doesn't give a rat's ass about us is sugar coated and concealed
> within all of the major religions.
>
> The second part of your statement is I believe your version of
> Pirsig's inability to see or grasp the essential conclusion of
> evolutionary theory. What he or at least some of his interpreters
> miss is that "betterness" is a relative term and "purpose" is an
> emergent property of feedback systems.

Biological evolution, social adaption, and exhibited behavior seem to 
comprise your description of Man.  If anyone wants to know what is meant by 
an objectivist approach to philosophy, this is perfect example.  Instead of
envisioning man as the free agent of value, you claim that value (Quality) 
is "wired into" man as a fixed code, along with the morality that directs 
his behavior.. Even conceptualization is predetermined as part of nature's 
"encoding" process.

Regrettably, this triadic definition overlooks self-awareness, value 
realization, individual identity, freedom of choice, the ability to "remake" 
oneself and seek one's own destiny, human creativity in science, 
entrepreneurship and the arts, and a host of other attributes that 
distinguish man's persona and unique capabilities.

Your assertion that man plays no part in creating the universe or directing 
the course of history essentially makes him a robot of nature.  To deny 
man's aspiration to noble goals on the premise that it's indicative of 
"self-pity" and "vanity" not only demeans humanity and its record of 
achievement but reveals the nihilistic bent of a disillusioned soul.

I sincerely hope that some event in your life will inspire you toward a more 
salutary worldview.

Thanks for all the the effort you put into this dissertation.

Best wishes,
Ham