[MD] The 4th. level's two interpretations. Part 1

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Mark (Will), nice one.

First -
A really boring trivial comment - levels 1 and 4 both begin with "I" -
so it makes abbreviations very difficult / confusing - I always
relabel the levels before I start. And I always do it top down -
hierarchically - assuming better is (meant) to mean something ;-) once
we understand it.

4 - Intellectual
3 - Social
2 - Biological (Living - but not necessarily carbon-biological))
1 - Physical (not-Living)

Secondly -
Clearly the definitions of 3 & 4 (in terms that distinguish one from
the other) represent the knotty point at issue, so lets first think of
the definitions below 3/4 to see how this works.

1 to 2 is about Life. Biological replication of patterns of
organization of of the physical (inc chemical). Communication of
physical "genetic" information.

2 to 3 is about what ? (then we can talk about 3 to 4 ... or even
alternatives to 3 and 4 ?)

As your draft suggestions confirm... they are ALL about communication
and replication of information, and they are ALL about patterns in the
lower level being organized into higher level patterns in the higher
level. (In this way higher level patterns always "involve" lover level
patterns and the lower level patterns are always affected by the
higher, too)

I can make this work 2 to 3.
The information patterns in 3 take the bio-physical patterns below and
organize them "symbolically" - the significance / semantics of the
patterns are in the level higher than the phyiso-biological substrate
- communicated more like we would think of as "language". We have
moved into the realms of culture, arts, sciences, politics, etc, etc,
Communications between minds in the mental realm, if we like - WARNING
- but focussing on the mental is clearly therefore not going to help
understand 3 & 4 - the Scylla and Charybdis we must avoid - we are
really talking about patterns and communication of symbolic
information.

With 3 to 4 we need to think more of two other important axes - IMHO -
for this to work.
One axis is the quality of individual vs collective paterns of
symbolic information.
The other is the quality of freedom vs authority in patterns of
symbolic information.
We never seem to be able untangle these as entirely independent axes -
so somewhere lurking in there is a more subtle axis that will
distinguish 4 from 3.

This ia about as far as I've been able to get.
The "symbolic" aspect is why we (even Bo) sees 3 & 4 as the
"subjective" perspective of the "objects" in 1, 2, 3 & 4 (where both
subjects and objects are of course PoV's in those layers of course.)

(I'm working on a pictorial representation of the above to help my thinking.)
Regards
Ian


On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:34 AM, markhsmit <markhsmit at aol.com> wrote:
> Hi Bo, Ian, Matt, All,
>
> I'm glad we are only on Part I.  It's enough to chew on for the
> time being.
>
> Just for the purposes of broadening the discussion, I would like
> to bring in the various levels from a purely descriptive, physical
> view, with some dynamic interplay thrown in.
>
> This would be a simplistic way of describing them (please correct
> me where I err):
>
> Level 1 Inorganic
> Particles such as stone interacting through principles of physics
> such as the described forces (weak, strong, electromagnetic, gravity)
> This interaction, or communication, is thought to be through particle
> exchange.  There is a higher level of communication through other
> means such as diffusion, fusion, erosion etc.
>
> Level 2 Biological
> The biological contains all the communication of Level 1 plus, the
> interaction through large molecular structures ranging from the
> biochemical (proteins etc.) up to the formation of large bodies
> (species etc)
>
> Level 3 Social
> The social contains all the communication of level 2 plus the
> dynamic interchange between living beings.
>
> Level 4 Intellectual
> The intellectual level contains all the communication of level 3 plus
> the specific interaction of humans within and between one another.
>
> Needless to say, this break down has its platypuses.
>
> So, cumulative communication is represented in each level.   It could
> be said that each level contains it's own consciousness.   Each level
> is unaware of the consciousness occurring at other levels.  As individuals,
> we are aware of level 2.  Social consciousness is unfelt by us, but we
> can tell that it does form a consciousness by observing that it does
> have behavior.  What it is actually thinking can only be roughly
> deduced.
>
> Now, Level 4 is where I have trouble with this simple breakdown.
> By the system I have set down, Level 4 must be a conglomeration
> of level 3.  However there are not distinct social levels that get
> together to form level 4 that I can tell.  Perhaps the sum total
> of societies of planet earth form level 4 in a kind of Gaia way.
> Another possibility is that level 4 is not related to the other levels,
> and exists on its own, as a kind of ghost.
>
> Using this simple analysis, I would have to say that levels 3 and 4 are the
> same level.  In fact, level 4 may be closer to level 2.
>
> Mark
>
> On Oct 27, 2009, at 11:38:37 PM, "Ian Glendinning" <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> From:   "Ian Glendinning" <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
> Subject:    Re: [MD] The 4th. level's two interpretations. Part 1
> Date:   October 27, 2009 11:38:37 PM PDT
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Bo, Glad to see Matt and Mark responding to your point.
>
> (Yet again baffled why you start with an attack - "Can't you
> understand that ...")
> But anyway you had said of the Intellectal Level ...
>
> 1) = SOM
> or
> 2) = what SOM means by "intellect", namely the mental compartment
> called "mind" where concepts - ideas - thoughts .. are formulated and
> stored.
>
> As per the replies already - of course those are not the only options
> - but you casting the question so succinctly makes the error very
> clear. The most obvious omission (on purely logical grounds) is ...
> the Intellectual Level ..
>
> 3) = what MoQ means by "intellectual". Why on earth would anyone
> construct a new metaphysics with the same definitions of intellect as
> existing metaphysics - the definition of a waste of a lifetime, surely
> ?
>
> As Mark says focusing on the mind/mental angle is not helpful in
> distinguishing intellect - clearly no social patterns would exist
> without mental / mind activities either. You effectively admit this
> when you say intellect is BOTH Spov and Ipov, or that S&I are
> "subjects" whereas Physical & Biological are "objects" - which is
> clearly primarily a SOMist view.
>
> Your SOL seems to be simply casting the problem in stone, rather than
> providing any useful solution to real socio-intellectual problems and
> patterns.
> Regards
> Ian
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>