[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

Hi Tuukka,
Thanks.  Let us remember that Pirsig is not a scientist.  His labels
were presented for metaphysical purposes and not for scientific ones.
Science is yet another metaphysics, and there is no reason to be
consistent within it when expounding on MoQ.  So this is really a kind
of red herring.

In the field of chemistry, we have the "organo-metalic" and the
"metallo-organic" compounds.  This is no different from describing my
discipline as a biochemist, or a chemical biologist.  So distinctions
can become very fine, but have little to do with MoQ.

What Pirsig presents is a systems approach to understanding Quality.
Of course Quality is not these levels.  They are simply presented to
convey an understanding of the way in which Pirsig sees the world,
which is not in levels in the end.  He could have used other levels
with equal effect, or not have resorted to levels at all.  I think it
is important to not get too caught up in the literal; otherwise we
would just be strict constitutionalists with little regard for change.
 Therefore the levels only serve as labels for something far greater,
and debate on their appropriateness should only revolve around what
these levels are meant to represent, not on their consistency with the
metaphysics of science.

Pirsig is also not an anthropologist, so his statements in that area
should be taken with a grain of salt.  These analogies are secondary
to Quality, and sometimes his examples make me laugh.  I do not laugh
at Quality, however.  Pirsig is an eclectic reader, and as one, he can
have little depth in any of the sciences.  Even his analogies into
quantum mechanics have many inconsistencies from the physics side of
things.  So, let us not get caught up in the details, but look at what
he is representing.  See the forest instead of the trees, for one gets
a much better view.

I am not sure what Dave is trying to prove, but then I have not
followed his reasoning on this.  Perhaps he has a purpose in MoQ
terms.

Remember that Pirsig is doing his best at explaining the
unexplainable.  Give him some slack.  Forget science, which is not an
important thing to grab on to in terms of MoQ.  For if you do hold on,
you will be sidetracked into something other than MoQ.  Quality cannot
be measured; it therefore lies outside of science, by definition.

Cheers,
Mark

On 2/27/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark,
> a good answer, I'd say.
>
> Dave said:
>
> "Let's start Concern #1 with this quote:
>
>     "In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided
>     into
>     four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social
>     patterns and
>     intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all there are. If you
>     construct an encyclopedia of four topics - Inorganic, Biological,
>     Social and
>     Intellectual --- nothing is left out. No 'thing,' that is. Only Dynamic
>     Quality, which cannot be described in any encyclopedia, is
>     absent."Lila pg 72
>
>
> "*Inorganic chemistry* is the branch of chemistry concerned with the
> properties and behavior of inorganic compounds. This field covers all
> chemical compounds except the myriad organic compounds (carbon based
> compounds, usually containing C-H bonds), which are the subjects of
> organic chemistry. The distinction between the two disciplines is far
> from absolute, and there is much overlap, most importantly in the
> sub-discipline of organometallic chemistry." Wikipedia
>
> As I have noted before chemists would have a problem with this level
> layout. There is the whole field of organic chemistry which doesn't fit
> into either the inorganic or the biological level. And if you add the
> recent discovery of sulfur and arsenic based life the problems escalate
> for this level layout.
>
> If you do a Google search on "levels of evolution" I don't think you'll
> find this exact arrangement anywhere. So when he claims  "This
> classification of patterns is not very original" I would disagree, they
> are unique to Pirsig. I can find no such order by anyone else.  The
> closest I found is the theory of emergence which uses;
> physical-chemical-biological-psychological. Which is probably closer to
> reality than Pirsig's system.
>
> In a 2003 letter to Paul Turner Pirsig tries to clarify the Social and
> Intellectual levels. (It's posted on MoQ.org for reference) In it he
> limits the social level to humans. First he suggests that use
> "intellect" as "just thinking" and "intellectual" is something else, in
> the end he says this:
>
>
>     "Intellectuality occurs when these customs as well as biological and
>     inorganic patterns are designated with a sign that stands for them
>     and these signs are manipulated independently of the patterns they
>     stand for. "Intellect" can then be defined very loosely as the level
>     of independently manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and mathematics
>     can be described as the rules of this sign manipulation." Pirsig in
>     Letter to Paul Turner @ MoQ.org
>
>
> He then goes on to claim that he can't see the intellectual level
> emerging any earlier than about 3000 years ago.
> I find this whole explanation problematic. I think a majority would
> agree that an outline of a buffalo on a cave wall is an abstract sign
> which communicates and these type of signs are at least 20,000 years old.
> Then he wishes to limit "social" in a way that it is not normally used.
>
>     "The term */social/* refers to a characteristic of living organisms
>     as applied to populations humans and other animals. It always refers
>     to the interaction of organisms with other organisms and to their
>     collective co-existence, irrespective of whether they are aware of
>     it or not, and irrespective of whether the interaction is voluntary
>     or involuntary." Wikipedia
>
> From an evolutionary perspective social, or group strategies that
> animals use have been around for a very, very, long time. In fact as
> science continues to investigate these strategies such as building
> shelter, nurturing and protection of young, specialization or division
> of labor, agriculture, communication...and on and on, the only
> significant differences between modern humans and other animals are two.
> The ability to independently abstract and manipulate signs and the
> ability to communicate "better". If "social" is really only "human
> social" then only thing separates them from "all other social animals"
> would seem to the emergence of the "intellect." Which upsets Pirsig's
> proposed level order."
>
>
>
> The levels of emergence can be chosen at will, probably. I don't think
> one solution is obviously better than the other, but there might be
> noticable differences anyhow. But Mark's criticism of the MOQ as a
> historical theory is quite cogent, I think. Pirsig seems to be thinking
> black and white about a very fuzzy issue.
>
> -Tuukka
> 26.2.2012 8:40, 118 kirjoitti:
>> Hi Tuukka,
>>
>> Within the structure of science, the levels which Dave presents are
>> the typical way of creating a hierarchy.  This is the manner in which
>> scientist would express levels.  In fact, in the discipline of
>> science, the difficulty of study is also placed in these levels.  It
>> is much easier for a physicist to cross over into biology, than the
>> other way around.  I am not sure if this is true, but that is the
>> tribal mode.  Philosophers would put their discipline on top of all
>> those, although I am also not sure if this is an accurate level
>> hierarchy, since philosophy is no longer considered a science as it
>> once was.
>>
>> My thoughts on this are that the presentations of levels should be
>> consistent with the metaphysics being presented.  MoQ uses one set of
>> levels, and science metaphysics uses another.  It would all depend on
>> what point is being made.
>>
> 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/md/archives.html
>