Hi Roger
thanks for your message. I split my answer in two, as two are the main
threads:
Intellect, language and animals (this message)
Intellect and art (coming soon)
ROG:
I agree that language (abstract messaging with shared verbal or written
signs) is not biological. We are in total agreement here. I would say that
it is probably social though. I could be wrong though (what's new?) so,
please argue back with me on this one. Children, Cro-Magnon's and "savages'
all have, or had, effective and complex language. Certainly language
presupposes some type of primitive society (to paraphrase Popper), but
considering its roots into antiquity, it seems to miss any of the
characteristics of an intellectual pattern.
MARCO:
Did I ever write that language IS intellectual? I don't remember. If I did,
I was under the effect of drugs :-). Language is social. Just like DNA is
inorganic. I'm saying that intellectual patterns need a code , like
language, to simply exist. If we just talk about the weather, our
interaction is purely social. But how can it be possible to have an
intellectual interaction without a shareable code? An intellectual pattern
must be socially shareable, and language makes it possible.
MARCO (previous post):
I love pets, so I don't want to deny them the possibility of being
intelligent. So I change the subject. The water has a biological value for a
tree, but no "meaning". OK NOW? :-)
ROG:
No, it isn't. I cannot argue for a tree, but I think "meaning" does exist
for advanced mammals.
MARCO:
Ok, no problem. Let's try this. IMO "meaning" is a step beyond language. My
example about the tree was an answer to your equivalence: meaning=value:
(ROG:=> Is something that has no meaning THAT different from something with
no
value?)
I already tried to explain the difference between "meaning" and
"significance"... of course
I agree we are just talking about value, in MOQ terms. But,
"The value that holds a glass of water together and the value that holds a
nation together are obviously not the same thing" (Lila chapter 12) .
My point was (and is) that intellectual static pattern of value are not
equivalent to inorganic or biologic or social static patterns of value
(according to the MOQ). I define IntPoVs as made of code (social support),
and significance (intellectual value). So my usage of "meaning" or, better,
"significance" points to a sort of kind of static value.
(I know that for you it's not enough. You ask also for a method of creating
and testing this "meaning", to claim it as intellectual value. If I well
understand your point, what I call intPoV must be refined to become what you
call intPoV. Refined by a methodic process known as science. But, tell me:
when Pirsig talks about the "hippy" movement as intellectual -even if full
of mistakes- do you see in it a methodological / scientific way of life? )
Going back to the water and the tree, IMO water has a biologic value to a
tree, but it's not easy to claim that it has a meaning for the tree. It's
like to say, on another level, that water has an inorganic value when it
extinguishes a flame, but not necessarily a "meaning". Finally, water has
for me a biologic value (thirst calming). AND an intellectual value (H2O).
But the biologic value and the intellectual value are not the same. This is
not Philosophy. It's common sense. :-)
ROGER:
I think biological creatures can identify patterns. I think communication
involves social interaction between biological patterns, and language
involves abstracted social communication.
MARCO:
Here we agree. There's an interesting paper by an Italian thinker: Piero
Trupia, this month on an Italian magazine. I translate it as I can. He is
talking about his cat Cassius.
<<Since when Cassius had its tail crushed by the door, every time he passes
the doorstep accelerates his walk. Cassius is intelligent, he's a
technician. But he is not rational, he has not a "meta" look. By the "meta"
look, the man abstracts, generalizes; sees the "horseness", not only horses;
links purpose with end, and this end can be a pure creative invention, an
absolute event>>.
Indeed, many animals are very intelligent. And they can communicate. But
it's probable that this "meta" look, that is the ability to generalize and
create intellectual patterns is only human (even if it's not easy to say
where is the human-non human frontier: Chimps, Cro-Magnon, Spice Girls...?)
He could be wrong. Maybe cats can see the "dogness" ... but it's not sure.
Surely trees can't. However this is intellect: the ability to analyze
reality by means of "links to" and "descriptions of" (idea=Greek eidos:
image); to generalize experience and create explanations of reality; to put
those explanations on some support out of a biologic individual, in order to
make them persist even in absence of the individual and in order to share
them with other individuals.
ROGER:
My point is that I think you will run into troubles building a coherent
metaphysics where
either meaning or language is primarily intellectual (again, ICBW)
As said, IMO language is social, so no problem. About meaning, hope it's
clear what I'm.... meaning.
tks for your patience
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 - 16:00:54 BST