From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Fri Sep 02 2005 - 19:36:09 BST
Ian,
Ian said:
I think your symbolic manipulation is one part of intelligence (a
linguistic part and therefore very important part) but I doubt it will
be very satisfactory as the whole definition of "intellect". We'll
see.
Scott:
Right. That's why I added creation and observation of symbols. Manipulation
is the boring part of intellect. Observation (maybe 'reflection' would be
better) is noticing the boring, or inadequate or incoherent state of
existing intellectual patterns, resulting in creating new ones.
Ian said:
You do highlight one of the isssues, more significant in this higher
layer - the extent to which it is really "static". The rate of
evolution in this layer is greater than the others, and we probably
have many static patterns within in, (and that's really what we're
talking about) rather than the whole "slab" of intellect being
"static" - if it were, it would be hard to avoid Bo's conclusion that
it just represents GOF-Intellect, as so far propounded by Pirsig.
Scott:
This really puzzles me -- why Pirsig detaches creativity from the concept of
intellect. (I think it lies in his beliefs about mysticism.). To say there
is intellectual SQ, but imply that DQ is only preintellectual strikes me as
absurd.
Ian said:
For me this just becomes a mildly interesting picture of what had
evolved historically as far as SOMist intellect before the MoQ, but
leaves the MoQ itself out in the cold - as little more that the
mystery of DQ processes themselves. I'm trying to "add value" to that
picture.
Scott:
One thing my definition leaves hanging is what is meant by "symbolic". The
"Essentialism and anti-essentialism" thread largely gives my understanding
of what a symbolic system is: the incessant mutual dependence between
concepts and their expression (essents and existents, universals and
particulars). So if asked what I think intellect is in the sense of "what
quality intellectual activity is like", I might say it is the working out of
new expressions, thus creating new concepts. We don't know the new concept
until it is expressed, yet if we didn't already know it in some obscure way,
we wouldn't have been able to express it -- and this is where I think the
logic of contradictory identity is needed to discuss intellect.
So what value do you wish to add?
- Scott
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 : Sat Sep 03 2005 - 01:30:49 BST