Hi Steve. On 5 Dec. you wrote:
> Steve: > I don't think the MOQ wants to do away with a distinction between > symbols and what they symbolize. Do away with (a) distinction ?! This formulation puzzled me, still does. The said distinction is the highest quality level (in my opinion that is). > I think symbols are social or intellectual patterns that may represent > social, biological, inorganic, and intellectual patterns (though I > don't think Pirsig explicitly locates symbols in the hierarchy). What symbols are "below" intellect is a futile question, at the social level there exists no S/O distinction and consequently no symbols. The wine and bread of the Catholic communion is supposed to be blood and flesh, but because the Catholics live in the Western intellectual culture this isn't taken seriously. What the current situation is among Catholics I don't know? In the intellectualized Lutheran Church it is regarded as symbols? When the social level was top notch this conundrum wasn't known. The totem pole was the totem, language was not concepts that stood for something else, but a powerful means to summon the forces, as it is still is in prayers Offerings were not symbolic acts, but the real thing (ref, the said "communion") and so on and on. Only with intellects subject/object distinction did the symbol/reality term occur ... along with a host of other dualisms. > Manipulations of such symbols are concepts and rationales which are > intellectual patterns. I don't quite understand this, Steve. Anyway, symbol manipulation is INTELLECT'S definition of language, but there are other forms of symbol manipulation; Calculation for instance but the point is that people of old (social age) both spoke and calculated, but did not regard it as symbol manipulation, the numbers and certain geometric figures/relationships were sacred. > The collection of all such patterns is the intellectual level itself. As said, in an MOQ retrospect social age people collected and manipulated what in intellectual retrospect is symbols. To be very wise-guyish: Even at the biological level (in an intellectual retrospect) there is symbol manipulation. The act of "translating" various frequencies of light into colors - into vision! - is the greatest feat of all. > Which type of pattern of value do you see symbols as? As said the term "symbol" occurred only with the intellectual level, in the social level's heyday no such term - and distinction - was known. In intellect's heyday (while SOM) ) social values had a hard time because intellect scoffs at symbols - they are nonexistent, subjective, But with the advent of the MOQ things changes. It "scoffs" at intellect and says that it is a static level dependent on the social level. Enough! Bo 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/
