Hi Bo, > >> Steve: >> I don't think the MOQ wants to do away with a distinction between >> symbols and what they symbolize. > Bo: > Do away with (a) distinction ?! This formulation puzzled me, still > does. The said distinction is the highest quality level (in my > opinion that is). > Steve: To me it makes no sense to say that a distinction is a level. My understanding is that Pirsig's levels represent types of patterns of value.
Steve: >> 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). > Bo: > 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. > Steve: I think I agree. It sounds like the symbols themselves (totems, words, ritual acts) may be social patterns since they are perpetuated through unconscious copying, but they aren't recognized as symbols outside of intellectual level awareness. > Steve: >> The collection of all such patterns is the intellectual level itself. > Bo: > 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. > Steve: It sounds like you are saying that the intellectual level emerges with symbols being recognized as symbols. I think that makes sense and is consistent with Pirsig's definition of intellect since skillful manipulation of symbols would seem to require an understanding of what symbols are. Regards, Steve 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/
