[MD] Two Minds

[Ron Kulp]

Austin,
Just to clarify your question, the concept of the levels is just that,
an intellectual construct to help clarify ideas about experience.
If we take them to be an evolutionary chronology in the "objective" sense,
We are going to run into some confusion regarding the topic.
-Ron 

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Austin Fatheree <austin.fatheree at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Jan,
> 
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> I'm not sure I'm tracking on why the intellectual can't be beside the
> social.  There certainly are a number of intellectual structures that built
> on top of the social layer.  We can find many examples.  But to say that it
> has to be above, we must also find evidence of absence of intellectual
> constructions that are  independent of the social layer.  I'd put forth
> medicine as an example of an intellectual construction that operates
> independent of society.  Possibly at a lower level we can see machine
> engineering as intellectual activity that operates at the inorganic level.
> 
> I'm not arguing that the intellectual isn't above the social...only that it
> it isn't only above the social.
> 
> -Austin
> 
> 
> ᐧ
> 
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Jan Anders Andersson <jananderses at telia.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Austin
>> 
>> I see the four levels in Lila this way:
>> 
>> At the inorganic level, atoms and molecules don’t bother about biological
>> structures. They can do well without. Most of the planets in universe only
>> have inorganic matter.
>> 
>> At the biological level, biological structures are dependant of physical
>> and chemical ”moral” but biological structures are following another higher
>> moral that inorganic matter doesn’t care about. Identical copies are
>> produced to avoid depletion by age, mostly by division. A biological
>> structure, like the DNA are free to use just  any of the existing atoms to
>> work. The building pieces are exchangeable. At the biological level,
>> competition and survíval of the fittest is the rule, eat and be eaten.
>> 
>> At the social level, social structures are dependant of the biological
>> level to exist but the social moral is different. Social structures have no
>> physical weight.  At the social level, cooperation of unique individuals
>> with different roles in the group, unique individuals from sexual breeding
>> of two different parents, where fame and celebrity within the group, is an
>> important part of the moral. A social level are using some kind of
>> communication between the members of the group and a common standard for
>> the language. Wild horses are good at communication but they don’t use
>> words. Celebrity, social status and power is the motivator for social
>> values. A social level can work identically by any member, members are
>> exchangeable. (Isn’t it just stupid to arrange a social party or a society
>> following the moral of the biological level?)
>> 
>> At the intellectual level, intellectual structures are dependant of the
>> social level to exist but it doesn’t matter what person or society are
>> using the intellectual structure, like the idea of a natural law like
>> thermodynamics or a mathematical formula. Intellectual structures must have
>> some one thinking it to be, but just any person can think the same thought.
>> Social structures can be ruled just by power and religious faith but to
>> build a sustainable bridge or arrange the rules for a succesful game
>> deserves some intellectual capacity. The idea of human rights are an
>> example of an intellectual structure that has to be pragmatically proven to
>> be valid. The United Nations and The declaration of Human Rights in the UN
>> was a result from the 2nd world war disaster. Not to mention the idea of
>> four evolutionary levels of morality.
>> 
>> If intellectual truths would emane from individual faith only we would
>> have a problem because it is impossible to see what’s going on inside
>> anybodys head. Any society based on individual faith and perspective will
>> be impossible to produce an exact definition. That is why religious groups
>> always need a preacher, a head who never can be sure about if his followers
>> are getting the concept right. That is also the main reason why religious
>> and political groups tend to split into smaller, more militant parts. Peace
>> and understanding must be based on universal concepts and understandable
>> agreements at the intellectual level. Faith is personal while pragmatic
>> thruths are general and valid for any person or society who use them.
>> 
>> The border, or step, between the levels are not easy to define better than
>> this, I think, but this way maybe you can see why the social level must be
>> between the biological and the intellectual and not beside the intellectual
>> level.
>> 
>> best regards
>> 
>> Jan-Anders Andersson
>> 
>> 
>>> 4 nov 2015 x kl. 18:46 skrev Austin Fatheree <austin.fatheree at gmail.com
>>> :
>>> 
>>> If things have been too quiet, let me throw some things out there for
>>> discussion.  I know I'm late to the party so if any of this has been
>>> discussed before, feel free to point me in the right direction.
>>> 
>>> A thing occurred to me while reading Lila that is really a technical
>> point,
>>> albeit I think an important one, that doesn't really change any
>> conclusions
>>> that Pirsig makes, but that may be worth discussion.
>>> 
>>> Pirsig indicates that the Intellectual level emerges from the social
>>> level(and by definition emerged in time after the social level) and thus
>>> has moral authority over it.
>>> 
>>> I think this is technically wrong, although the technical reasons don't
>> end
>>> up changing many of the conclusions.
>>> 
>>> I think that both the social and intellectual levels emerged out of the
>>> biological level.  The intellectual did emerge after the social and still
>>> holds moral authority over it and still has access to it, but it is more
>>> correct to say that it emerged from biology.
>>> 
>>> I think this because it more adequately fits what we see in reality.  Our
>>> brains have many parts and recent Psychological analysis shows that it
>> also
>>> has multiple modes.  Kahneman puts this forward in Thinking Fast and
>> Slow (
>>> http://amzn.to/1MzA82R ).  Here we see System 1 (Quick Judgments) and
>>> System 2 (Methodical Thought) being driven by various parts of the brain
>>> and assimilated in the neocortex.  The theory is that the more reptilian
>>> brain evolved first, and the neocortex evolved with access to these other
>>> parts of the brain to add prediction and better fitness.  System 1 is the
>>> social level brain and System 2 is the intellectual part.  System 1 just
>> is
>>> and just does.  System 2 can override and use simulated expectations as a
>>> basis.
>>> 
>>> Ultimately though, both evolutions were biological responses to fitness.
>>> Both emerged out of biology and out of what the biological level values
>>> (fitness).
>>> 
>>> I think this is important because at one point Pirsig says that a level
>>> only has access to the level below it.  I think the Intellectual level
>> does
>>> have access to the biological(although it has many built in biases
>> because
>>> System 1 was around with it developed).  System 2 may even be completely
>>> reliant on System 1 existing, but it can still reach down through it and
>>> act at the biological level.
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately the fallout from this is that distinguishing that the
>>> intellectual level should have moral authority over the social level
>>> becomes even murkier.  Unfortunately this also seems be an accurate map
>> of
>>> the territory.  I’m from Houston and yesterday we voted down our Houston
>>> Equal Rights Ordinance(HERO) because we have a significant portion of our
>>> population that has no desire to operate at an intellectual level.  It is
>>> all still way to social here in the South and social means that that guy
>>> over there is going to get one over on me if I don’t take it for myself.
>>> Boo us.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Austin
>>> twitter: @afat http://twitter.com/afat
>>> ᐧ
>>> 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
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Austin Fatheree
> RIVVIR Consulting
> http://www.rivvir.com
> austin at rivvir.com
> 832-483-0741
> twitter: @afat http://twitter.com/afat
> 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