From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sat Oct 11 2003 - 07:31:58 BST
Wim and All.
9 Oct. you wrote:
> I have no idea what you mean with 'a detached mind-intellect where the
> rest of experience exists as symbols, thoughts or ideas'. Mind =
> intellectual level, according to Pirsig (in 'Lila's Child') and I see
> nothing wrong with that.
> Detaching that from 'the rest of experience'
> and saying that that rest of experience consists of symbols, thoughts
> and/or ideas seems very strange to me.
What "seems very strange" ... the way I interpret you, or that I don't
accept that intellect is where the rest of experience consist as
symbols, thoughts and/or ideas?
> If the mind is anything it is
> symbols/thoughts/ideas (that stand for the rest of experience AND for
> parts of itself, when it symbolizes/thinks about/forms ideas about
> symbols/thoughts/ideas). So that can't have been what I meant.
The sentence ..."if the mind is anything" ...etc. sounds like this is
intellect as you see it, but the ..."so that can't have been what I
meant" ..seems to nullify it.
> I wrote 'The intellectual level ... is not a value but the sum total
> of the patterns of value of a specific type'.
> Would that be more acceptable to you if you read 'The intellectual
> level ... is not A value but the sum total of the PATTERNS OF value of
> a specific type'?
My objection is directed against all these special-relationship
definitions of intellect. All static levels are special and so is intellect,
but not extraordinary.
> The intellectual level definitely IS value (just like the whole rest
> of experience). I had problems with limiting it to just A value in
> your definition of the intellectual level as 'the value of seeing
> symbol-manipulation as different from the rest of experience'.
That's better. But why "sum total"? Admittedly intellect is on top of the
inorganic, biological and social level, but I feel it's something else you
mean by "sum total. All levels are a value of their own and so is
intellect.
> But ... I still disagree that this change was THE change from social
> patterns of value to intellectual patterns of value. Even before the
> 3rd century BC the 'standing for' relation in the patterns of value
> was there, even if people didn't know it for what it was. They
> definitely did experience something different when running into a
> tiger, when running into a human being 'dancing' a tiger and when
> hearing someone else shrieking: 'A TIGER!'.
Again I must ask you to listen to my reasoning. The difference
between words and objects is NOT the S/O. Very simplified, the
Jaynes' theory says that ancient mankind "heard voices" ("in their
heads" Jaynes calls it) which they identified as their gods speaking.
Then some change took place that made these voices into thoughts
(it became "in their minds"). Now, it was not that the word "tiger"
parted company with the actual animal, that difference existed even in
the "divine language" era. No, it was the impression of an internal
(subjective) reality different from the external (objective) that made for
the new era.
This makes language the "carbon" of the social-intellectual transition
and the relationship with the actual element's role in the inorganic-
biological transition is striking. Carbon is found in all biological
patterns and language is found in all intellectual patterns, but none
ARE in themselves the upper level)
> The patterns of value
> maintained by copying (symbolic) rationales (e.g. associating a strong
> tiger with a healthy people and therefore wanting to be like a tiger)
> WITHOUT knowing a symbol for a symbol were not essentially different
> from the patterns of value maitained by copying rationales WITH the
> knowledge that they were 'only' manipulating symbols.
Well, this is the pre-historic magical reality, but IMO not the coming of
the intellectual level.
> How can 'experience that a symbol is different from and YET LIKE SOME
> OTHER EXPERIENCE' evade your understanding? 'Is different from and yet
> like' is just a redescription of 'stands for', the element you liked
> in 'it is the "standing for" relationship that characterizes 4th level
> experience'.
I must return to the new-fangled internal/external divide to try to make
you understand. As said the voice-thought transformation created the
impression of a mind realm, but please note the "impression" part
(Pirsig says that it is the easiest ting in the world to mix the two) thus it
is the internal/external DIVIDE which is intellect's value, not the
internal alone. However, I believe the fallacy is seeing the internal
component only (SOM's mind) as the intellectual level, and that inside
this "mental" realm the rest of existence exist as "symbols".
Yours sincerely
Bo
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 Oct 11 2003 - 07:32:54 BST