(This post continues a discussion between me and Bo, begun in MF mailing
list during the month of May 2000. I decided to move here as we have gone
completely off topic, and there's the possibility to go on beyond the end of
the month)
---------------------------------------------------
Bo,
really like a chess match....
>
> Your intellectual self is suspended in language, but evolution
> bypassed all other levels so why not intellect? Unless you view
> language-intellect as a mindish realm.
>
My intellectual self is suspended in English Language. (Double problem. :-)
I don't understand if you can't understand me for my bad English or for what
I mean....
I never said that intellect can't be bypassed (or surpassed). I just think
that your noble attempt is completely intellectual, so you can't surpass the
car you are driving.
And this "mindish realm" is not my position. Rather, it's your way to see my
position. I just think that mind is a biologic function (and not an empty
cup), able to analyze sensorial data, synthesize intellectual patterns, and
store these patterns using language as support. Intellectual patterns are
not stored in mind or in brain: they're stored in the intellectual
environment.
(I individuated "public opinion" as this environment. It would be nice
discuss it one day).
> Social language must necessarily be different
> from intellectual language. When a social animal .....
You probably remember that our old friend Denis pointed out that language is
made of a static side (the code) and a dynamic side (the meaning). So I'd
prefer
to say "the meaning of a social message must be different from the meaning
of an intellectual message": I can use my inchoate English (code) talking
about the weather (social message), or talking about the ultimate scientific
researches about atmosphere (intellectual message).
> It sounds like I have shifted from language to science (as intellect),
> but I do most vehemently agree with language as the "machine
> code" the way you describe it. In its bosom it carried the seed that
> made the intellectual leap possible. But you want language itself to
> be Q-intellect - after having said that it is the stepping stone out of
> society.
Another misunderstanding. I think I never said that language is the
Q-intellect itself. I said that Language is the limit of the Q-intellect, in
the sense that all intellectual patterns (meanings) must be coded to
intellectually exist. Just like DNA is not the Q-biology: but the biologic
patterns (lives) must be coded to biologically exist.
> The reason for this abstract fallacy is that language with
> its grammar and syntax is much like mathematics. When you
> operate it, results that you did not expect pops up, and this
> produces the impression of an elevated realm where truths lay in
> wait for some to discover them.
Abstract fallacy, Language like mathematics...Hmmm you partly deluded me,
Bo.
Grammar and syntax are codes. I can express the same message using different
codes (Italian, English, Greek, or drawing a picture), but the meaning is
the same!
IMO spoken language is not the only form of language. Why don't you try to
expand your vision to different codes? You can express a message in
different ways. Words, of course, but also movies, pictures, symphonies,
novels.... all these techniques can carry your message, intellect it's a
sort of multimedia. The main problem is to find the most effective way to
code your message.
Of course if you assume SOL= Q-Intellect (I go on thinking that your idea is
merely an intellectual assumption), you consider only the scientific SOMish
language. But this excludes a lot of human intellectual applications (and
relative codes).
I talked about "Control of masses; investigation of reality; explanation of
phenomenons; religions, philosophies, sciences, arts" as intellectual
applications. You call these "loose ends": but where is the evidence that
the ONLY goal of intellect is a SOMish science? Only in your assumption, I
guess. This position seems to be a little deterministic: let the intellect
free to have different goals! If not, where do you put all these "loose
ends"?
I suggested:
> > Is it possible to have an intellectual pattern (made of language)
> > without a subject object logic? I dare answer "yes". I suggest
> > abstract art and jazz. And MOQ. And quantum physics. Eastern
> > philosophies could give us other examples....
You don't agree about jazz and painting:
>
> Jazz and painting?? I wouldn't deem that intellectual patterns even
> if the composer and painter "think" when creating their works.
> When entering intellect the 'abstract' creeps in and screws things
> up. Without mockery in mind, I hope for an intellect epiphany too. .
>
These were only suggestions, I will not sacrifice myself for jazz... but
you must enlarge your vision: it's not the "thought" of the artist that
creates the picture. A quality event like inspiration is "coded" by the
artist with the result of an artistic message. In the past I brought the
example of the Picasso's "Guernica". That picture can tell me about Spanish
war something that is impossible to explain by words. Art is a different
code. But your assumption of Q-intellect as pure scientific rationality
excludes all this.
(And however you didn't answer about the other suggestions. :-)
> Let me just add this. In the previous letter it sounded as if your
> requirement for an "escape" from intellect had to be non-linguistic.
> All levels build on - carries with them - the previous levels. DNA
> (with help from Magnus I called it "Interaction") Sensation and
> Emotion are still with us. Pirsig stresses that intellect (how much it
> strives to look 'out of the blue'), is emotional-prone. Likewise, after
> language (or my SOM/Reason) entered the scheme it will follow
> evolution for ever.
Good move! I try this answer.
When Einstein created his explanation of universe (intellectual pattern), of
course he was immersed in emotions, and was alive. Probably he was pushed by
his emotions, surely he proved great emotions thanks to the celebrity he
gained. But it would be a platypus to argue that relativity is composed by
Einstein's emotions. Emotions, celebrity, money (social values) were just
the "prize" for his intellectual investigation. In this sense we can say
that intellectual patterns devour social values. And however these social
values are blind to the meaning of relativity.
He used (and innovated also) scientific language to code his explanation of
universe. But it would be another platypus to argue that relativity is
composed by scientific language. In a quality event of intellectual
cReaTion, the Q-Einstein produced relativity, made of dynamic intellectual
meaning coded by scientific language. It's impossible to have a relativity
without some scientific language, but you can explain relativity in
different ways.
So this phantom 5th level patterns you are searching can't be coded with
language. It could be something where the achievement of some intellectual
value (meaning, knowledge, enlightenment... ) is seen as the prize for an
activity in which a new kind of static patterns is coded through a new kind
of machine code. But all this can't be described with language, as intellect
will eventually be blind to all this.
tks for your attention
Marco.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:43 BST