In a message dated 98-10-28 10:50:27 EST, glove wrote:
<< Xcto wrote:
I would say that the coconut problem is an early social function from which
intellect is derived. I would say it is not an intellectual pattern in that
the monkey doesnot think of stone, a tool that breaks things. It is the
beginning of the symbol of tool to use, but it is a direct stone-coconut
connection. A monkey doesn't have the immediate ability to think, what else
could I use this tool for. It is a socially derived value pattern much like
the monkey would use in finding which food is good to eat; the monkey learns
it socially. Language is first a social tool, not an intellectual one, and
most people use it this way 95% of their life. Think about what people
really
talk about most of the time and you will see it.
<<<<<gloves comment:
it is debateable what the monkey thinks. nonetheless the monkey uses the
intellect in much the same fashion as other species, including humans.>>>>>
I disagree in that you use thinking as the same as Intellectual Patterns. I
believe that only humans on this planet create Intellectual Patterns
Xcto wrote:
Furthermore, your quote is taken out of context. Pirsig is saying that the
earlier society couldn't differentiate society and intellect because there
was
no need for it, intellect didn't exist (no value to the people).
>>>>>gloves comment:
i believe you have misinterpreted the quote wrong yourself. the quote i used
does not talk of past tense at all, but how
the intellect operates NOW. in fact, that is precisely why i picked that
particular quote. re read it carefully and you will see my point here.>>>
Cant find your passage in 10 minutes of looking - im in hardback (409 pg
book)
My line of thinking was related to the ideas about rta at the end of chapt 30
(p387 in my book.
and finally you write:
But...we should not get in the habit of
quoting Pirsig as the sole reason to accept an argument. This is not a
criticism of you, but a reminder for us all.
gloves comment:
i dont think anyone here thinks quoting Pirsig is a sole reason to accept an
arguement. however, since it is called the Lila Squad, after a book written
by Pirsig, i suppose a few quotes
from the master never hurts to clarify an issue. >>
i don't think i need to answer this...
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:36 BST