From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jul 04 2003 - 14:46:26 BST
Hi Sam, Bo:
Sam:
> I'm not aware that there is any agreement as to what 'thinking' actually
> is. Dependent on how you define it, dogs, cro-magnons and physics
> professors can all think. Trouble is, as soon as you define it, you are
> making something other than *thinking* the criterion of distinction between
> the levels.
Sorry. I don't get what you mean by the sentence beginning with "Trouble
is . . ." The criterion of distinction between the levels is created by
thinking. Why does defining thinking destroy that criterion? If anything,
a definition ought to point out the characteristics of the pattern that
makes the criterion possible, characteristics such as the collection and
manipulation of symbols that Pirsig suggests. After all, is not a
definition simply using one set of symbols to describe another?
Bo said I should look at "Sam's excellent piece about thinking." So I'm
looking and don't see a problem. I must have a blind spot . . . which will
come as no surprise to some. :-)
Platt
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 : Fri Jul 04 2003 - 14:44:44 BST