Hey DMB
>
>DMB says:
>There's no denying it. There was a great intelligence in the social level.
>It created language, art, civilization and religion. And even the spoken
>language is an exercise in the manipulation of words and pictures, which
>are
>symbols. But the manipulation of language-derived symbols is a step above
>that. Are you more confused than ever or did that help?
>
>Thanks. You can have your eyes back now. DMB
Elliot:
Well, it will all make sense once you explain to me the difference between
symbols and language derived symbols. in the pirsig annotation he didnt
seem to be stressing any sort of distinction between the two. And i also
dont understand why you think that the social began along side intelligence,
why did not the social begin long before hand and the "invention" of symbol
manipulation just not revolutionize it? the boundries between social and
intellect become amazingly blury such that the step from social the
intellect seems almost trivial when compared to the step from chaos to
inorganic and inorganic to biological (not to mention you seem to suggest
that the social is the invention of intellegent beings).
I admit the distinction is tricky becuase language is obviously a social
level thing but the manipulation of language, of words (which are symbols
derived from language) into sentances and thoughts is intellectual. This is
why i say language is an evolutionary step within the social, because the
intellect is implied in its exsistance.
Im not a linguist but i do know that the process of language development
involves taking symbols and assigning associations to them. the letters D O
G come to sybolize a small furry mammle whic looks and behaves a certain
way. If this liguistical D O G is not a language derived symbol for use in
manipulation (sentances about a dog, which change the idea of that
particular dog), then what is? If it is a language derived symbol, then im
lost again because you say language developed before the intellect where the
connection between D O G and what we experience to be dogs implies to me the
manipulation of such symbols.
You could have just skipped to this line where i say: I dont get what
distinction could exsist between symbols (one example you give of this is
words) and "language derived symbols" which are somehow different (not
words?) from just regular symbols.
Also, i'll add that although language and religion are social things, to me
they seem to have been born from the intel level and were later altered and
mediated to become the social things we know now. the Mystic experience
(the high point of the intel level as i understand it) seems to be
transformed into religious doctrine (and Dao, God, Great Spirit and soul all
get confused), not the other way around which your system seems to say. In
the same way that mystic experience becomes religion, so personal
experiences become language as some intellect must use his knife to cut a
piece out of perception and give a name to it, then it becomes mediated and
becomes language. not the other way around. I'll say it one last time:
Your social seems to me to require the simultaneous exsistance of what i
call the intellect.
I also didnt understand your statement about my eyes,
sorry,
Elliot
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:02:16 BST