Hi Bo, > >> Steve: >> It sounds like you are saying that the intellectual level emerges >> with symbols being recognized as symbols. > Bo: > Yes, exactly, > >> 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. > > No, the irony is that it doesn't. People of old manipulated (what > intellect later came to regard as) symbols, they spoke, sang, > worshipped images and statues in addition to carrying out skillful > calculations without regarding these as symbols.
Steve: I don't see singing, speaking, drawing symbols as necessarily manipulating symbols. It could be just copying symbols like copying any other behavior on the basis of social quality. I don't think there is intellectual activity is saying, "bless you" when someone sneezes for example. Calculation may also not be intellectual activity as when a child recited times tables without any thought of what multiplication is. Bo: > It was only with > SOM that the symbol different from what it symbolizes distinction > - or aggregate - came to be. I may sound adamant but this is so > important to understand.. > > Now, an Egyptian scribe making the hieroglyph "Pharaoh" on a > tomb wall knew well that it wasn't the king in flesh, yet it wasn't > "just" a symbol" it carried pharaoic power. There are many > modern social values, flags, medals, tombstones, national > anthems ...etc. and we call them rituals, symbols ...etc. but can't > neglect them which reveals the social value below . > Steve: I agree with you for the most part about "symbols" being used prior to intellect without recognizing them as symbols and can see the fourth level emerging with a distinction between symbol and what is symbolized. However, it seems like you want to equate that distinction with SOM. To me these are totally different issues. As I understand it, SOM includes philosophical thought that wrestles with subjective versus objective knowledge distinctions. The MOQ arose through Pirsig thinking about how Quality fits into such philosophical systems. In any SOM, reality is comprised of subjects and objects alone, so Quality must reside in either the subject and be "just subjective" or in the object while it doesn't seem to be objectively measurable. Obviously neither was satisfactory, and he created the MOQ to solve such philosophical problems. I don't remember Pirsig or anyone else ever saying that there is a problem with distinguishing symbols and what they symbolize. 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/
