Re: MD Language in the MOQ

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Nov 27 2003 - 20:33:18 GMT

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD confused; take action"

    Hi

    I have read quite a bit of this stuff without joining in.
    Do we not say 'intellectual' when conflict emerges between
    society and the individual that goes beyond mere superficial/
    material/power individual gain within the society. The intellectual
    is holding views, unacceptable to society generally, for their own sake
    and not for personal gain, or because of a desire to change the society
    hence in terms of dynamic change. Many myths explore the notion of the
    emergence of the individual/ego and the heroic conflict involved in this.
    A social system/culture has a static aspect, where the individual is
    involved
    in dynamic change/conflict or trying to make new possibilities possible we
    are talking about possible intellectual phenomena. Equally we may also
    ask about class conflict or changes in terms of economic production that are
    interacting with cultural changes that are occuring in both individual and
    class
    terms. All depends where you want to draw a line and call something
    intellectual.
    Takes a certain sort of intellect to improve the way you cut your flint axe.
    All DQ activity implies intellect, otherwise it is random/accident and has
    no quality.

    regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 4:48 PM
    Subject: RE: MD Language in the MOQ

    > 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
    >
    >

    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 - 20:38:33 GMT