From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Thu Nov 27 2003 - 16:48:40 GMT
Hi Bo
Bo said:
I am as you know not completely happy with the "manipulation of
symbols" intellect (even Mark sees this as merely defining language)
and the way distinguishes between social and intellectual
"manipulation" looks a bit "ad hoc"
Paul:
The way I see it is that symbol manipulation, as an activity in itself,
defines intellect. There is certainly symbolic *behaviour* at the social
level, e.g. the material exchange of gifts, symbolising a desire for
friendship, but it is when the symbol of "friendship" is considered in
itself, independently of any "act of friendship," is capable of being
compared and contrasted with other symbols, that one is manipulating
symbols intellectually. That is what I think Pirsig meant when he said
"intellect is simply thinking," but then the question is asked, "Doesn't
it require thought to offer a gift with an expectation of a certain
response?" Maybe it does but I think it is possible to distinguish
between "thoughtful" behaviour latched as socially learned customs,
where the behaviour is primary, and the activity of thinking, where
thought itself is primary.
Back to language, one can say that the meaning of words is dependent on
the social patterns in which those meanings are created and learned by
their very use. As Pirsig says, all intellectual patterns are also
social patterns. But when those meanings are taken out of their social
usage and defined, studied, analysed, and manipulated into a variety of
structures which correspond to no specific situation or experience, but
using the rules of grammar (and mathematics and logic), then we are
latching patterns of thought without necessarily having to turn that
thought into behaviour. Reconstruction, prediction, hypotheses of
experience can all latch. The sum total of patterns of thought latched
in this way is then the intellectual level.
All of this said, I now see what Pirsig means when he wrote to me "But
for anyone who really wants to know what intellect is I think
definitions are not the place to start. Since definitions are a part of
the intellectual level the only person who will understand a definition
of intellect is a person who already is intellectual and thus has the
answer before he ever asks." I also recall a post from someone (I think
it was Pi) who said something like "in order to define intellect you
have to draw a line under the process of definition."
Cheers
Paul
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 : Thu Nov 27 2003 - 16:49:08 GMT