From: Allen Barrows (allen_barrows@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 13 2005 - 14:09:33 BST
Bo: This transferred to the MOQ makes its intellectual level SOM's
subjective half, but this I vehemently protest, intellectual value is
a very special outlook that distinguishes between what is
objective and what is subjective.
You say MOQ intellectual level is SOMs subjective half because of SODV i think. SODV says both social and intellectual sq patterns may be considered subjective and not the intellect by its self. Please read SODV again and check for yourself if what i say is wrong bo.
You disagree and say intellectual level is a distinguishing outlook and by that i take it you mean value because being able to distinguish is a value judgement. So what is doing the judgeing? What has this outlook? Quality monism? Is not outlook a visual metaphor with SOM undertones?
If you mean quality then you have defined quality with a dualism. Saying something is special does not add anything to your argument Bo.
> Intellectuality
> occurs when these customs as well as biological and inorganic
patterns
> are designated with a sign that stands for them and these signs are
> manipulated independently of the patterns they stand for. ‘Intellect’
> can then be defined very loosely as the level of independently
> manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and mathematics can be described as
> the rules of this sign manipulation.
> As you can see symbols can simply float away from what they point to.
The above is Pirsig from Lila's Child, a definition aimed at
repairing the "intellect=thinking" sidetrack that he admitted to in
the PT letter.
There words 'intellect is the same thing as thinking' do not appear in the quote you have here. I read it again and still they are not here. You are adding your own words after those in the quote. I simply can not see the words intellect equals thinking in this quote at all.
Thinking can be social so you use the word thinking bad here. The key is that what is being said here is independant from what (custom) symbols stand for. Now that is exactly what i say in my little social traffic light story a story you have not brought into this post even though i tried hard to invent it exactly so you could see the independance we find in your quote. In other words your quote supports my story and not intellect equals thinking.
But this definition is merely one of language
(concepts manipulated by rules of syntax and grammar)
something I see as the social pattern that became intellects
"vehicle".
Language is both social and intellectual depending on the independance of the symbols from what they customary stand for and this is stated very clearly in the quote. So to dismiss it as merely language is crude.
I am not pleased with your vehicle metaphor because the word vehicle imlies containment when the word independant conveys freedom. New behaviour is not carried by its componants it is a new mode of relationships between componants.
But you have some more to say:
> Some might say this is a difference between objective appearence and
> subjective thought but it does not have to be at all it seems to me
> because grammer can manipulate symbols independantly of whether any
> objects or subjects are percieved.
OK I see and agree, but the thing is that my favorite people of old
(social reality in the MOQ) used language without caring about
any such difference. Language was part of that malleable magic
reality where rituals (chanting f.ex) could change it. Social
existence has its present day reminiscence in religions and
prayers
The intellectual LEVEL occurred when the difference (between
what is symbolized and the symbol was "discovered" (just one
aspect of it)
Not according to the MOQ and my traffic light simile. The intellectual level occures with symbols being manipulated independently from what they stood for.
What i have is symbol and manipulation.
What you have is symbol and another symbol.
But dear Allen if you admitted to my "intellect the
S/O prism", all the rest is a bit inconsequential Don't you see
that?
Bo
No i do not see at all.
I wish there was an argument for what you are saying but i can not find one yet.
Thank you
Allen
PS I am disturbed to read your comment about Pearls before swine. Am i am swine too?
I fear this mode of communication is low social quality at best, biological quality at worst and in no sense intellectual.
---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Mon Jun 13 2005 - 14:34:42 BST