> Matt previously said:
> That's why I don't go for the distinction between
> intelligence and intellect as what divides Pirsig's
> levels. Intelligence is obviously the biologically
> linked thing that we share with the animals, but I
> think that's all there is. "Intellect" is a
> reification of a set of cultural innovations that
> humans were able to create in part through their
> creation of language. Language was just a tool we
> created to help us survive. So were all the other
> innovations that language made possible. Some of
> these innovations took on a life of their own, but
> how do we tell an evolutionary story about the
> creation of "intellect" if it isn't a set of
> cultural innovations? We haven't been able to do it
> for "mind" or "representations" yet, and that's
> partly why philosophers of a pragmatist stripe have
> been working so hard to retire them.
> SA previously said:
> My point exactly. This is why I keep saying we
> could try to define intellect and any other level
> all day and night and we wouldn't be able to. If we
> completely thought we did, then we would be stuck.
> These levels are defining something more dynamic,
> creative, free, and open than we may think at this
> moment. This is how improvising works so well on
> the day to day events. We may try to organize and
> structure our lives into Confucian habits, but
> nature's wind will blow and the inspiration will
> flow.
> Matt:
> Your point, however, is not my point. We _can_
> define intellect, and all the other levels, and we
> _should_ define intellect, and all the other levels.
> You've made the exact mistake I think we should
> avoid: you've conflated thinking with SOM. The idea
> of defining something "completely" is the SOMic
> mistake, the possibility that is an impossibility.
> Plato's Forms are this idea, where the concept
> hooked directly onto its essence in a perfect,
> immutable relationship. But thinking that we are
> ineluctably drawn to SOM simply by virtue of
> thinking, or using words, is the perfect inverse of
> SOM: monistic quietism--and an inverse is no better
> than the original.
> When we define concepts and terms, we aren't
> defining _completely_, we're trying to fashion an ad
> hoc tool for the moment.
Exactly my point. You even say here, "we aren't
defining_completely_,". I've also said on other posts
we do try to define these levels, and it is an
on-going process. I'm not contradicting myself. I've
been holding the same view. As I said above, "This is
how improvising works so well on the day to day
events." I'm in the middle of trying to define what
is an 'emergency' at work. What we end up using and
enforcing as an 'emergency' will probably differ than
an emergency in Iraq. So, when I say we can't define
intellect, this is a statement that will work around
the world due to diversity and why I believe it holds
well with democracy. This statement emphasizes the
openness where creativity can sprout. When I say we
can try to define intellect (and we do and will) and
it is an on-going process, well, this is a statement
that will allow 'us' at work to come up with a
definition of emergency at work so staff can enforce a
certain routine during the schedule called quiet time
(residents are only allowed to call out during quiet
time if it is an emergency - hence, some staff are not
on the same page of what an emergency is so we will be
discussing this and establishing for consistencies
sake what an emergency is so residents don't have
space to argue.)
[Matt]
> The zephyr wind will
> always blow, but Pirsig's point is that organizing
> and structuring is one of the things that we do to
> weather hurricanes. All we need to do is to stop
> writing our earthly messages into the stars above.
Discussed above. I think we're on the same page
more than you previously noticed, but obviously you
know yourself better than I. I realize you've placed
language in the same area as the moq's intellectual
level. Yes, you've defined language as being what's
on this level, but I would say a better understanding
of all the languages would be to know all the diverse
languages. Some languages do some 'things' for some
cultures, that other languages of other cultures don't
do. Yes, they are all languages, but each language is
diverse enough (some more than others of course) to
demonstrate a diverse realities. How does this fit
into what your saying?
gray,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
