From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 24 2002 - 17:21:03 GMT
DMB had said:
"The manipulation of symbols that intellect can engage in goes way beyond
the
basic acquisition of language."
Glenn says:
I see your point, but mine is that Pirsig's definition of the
intellectual level as merely "the manipulation of symbols" is useless
if it's purpose is to distinguish itself from the social level. Leaving
it undefined is better than this sorry attempt.
DMB replies:
Considering all the confusion that surrounds this definition, I'd tend to
agree. However, I have to say that the constant misunderstanding of what
"intellectual" means here in this forum is sad. Any person interested in
discussing metaphysics and philosophy should not be baffled by this word.
DMB had said:
"SOM says that these subjective things are really real, whereas
Pirsig's SOM says these "subjective" patterns are as real as rocks
and trees."
Kindly, Glenn said:
Maybe you were tired when you wrote this, David, as neither clause
of your sentence makes sense according to the MOQ. I do like your
inadvertent two word phrase "Pirsig's SOM", though.
DMB says:
Ouch. Tired? Looks like I was sound asleep when I wrote that. Please forgive
and let me replace it with what I meant to say. "SOM says that these
subjective things are NOT really real, whereas Pirsig's MOQ says they are as
real as rocks."
DMB had said:
"BUT the fact remains that these subjective patterns can't be measured
in terms of physical attributes. Hooking candidates up to wires will
not detect the President, only their sweat and breath, which is nothing
more than the biological correlates of stress."
Glenn said:
I agree that "Hooking candidates up to wires will not detect the
President", especially if neither candidate is actually the President:)
A much better way, as I've explained, is to run their fingerprints.
DMB says:
Fingerprints? That would let us distinguish between one human's biological
attributes over another, but it tells us nothing about the President.
Glenn said:
In a narrow, quantitative sense I agree that "subjective patterns can't
be measured in terms of physical attributes", but some subjective patterns
can be reasonably inferred from the measurements or observations of
physical attributes, and sometimes machines can measure better than people
can observe. This is why the best lie detectors are machines.
DMB says:
Sure. We can make inferences. No doubt. Liars can be detected by way of
"micro expressions" and other involuntary physical responses. And its true
that machines such as a slow motion video camera can detect these better
than our own eyes, but to come to any conclusions about the liar we have to
add something else, somthing that is not detectable by machines. Because,
after all, its really hard to lie without talking and so we're talking about
a third level thing. In fact, the very concept of "liar" is a social one.
The fact that this form of deception can be betrayed by the body's responses
only shows that they are two seperate things.
Thanks,
DMB
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 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 24 2002 - 17:21:27 GMT