Magnus, Bodvar, Arlo - MOQtalk >> Chris: >>> What about this: Isn't the different patterns supposed to be in >>> conflict? I mean, each pattern have different ways of "responding" to >>> quality, and as has been stated many many times "regard each other as >>> immoral" how can this definition work if we say that the intellectual >>> level is to look upon symbols as separate entities? The way I see it, >>> that isn't in conflict with anything. I mean, one can clearly see how >>> full fledged rationality may be in conflict with Social Patterns of >>> Value, but "the ability to manipulate symbols"? What is that in >>> conflict with?
[Bo] >> I can only say "amen", the level struggle (moral codes) is is one >> of the MOQ tenets most pregnant with the SOL interpretation. >> What threat can the social level see in the "manipulation of >> symbols" or vice versa what control of the social level is it in it for >> intellect? And how does the intellectual patterns that LILA lists >> emerge from the symbol manipulation (which is a definition of >> language anyway) .... and why didn't Pirsig spot these >> "anomalies"? [Magnus] > They don't always need to be in direct conflict. The upper levels use > the lower for its own purposes, and that may or may not be in direct > opposition to the lower. > > In the example above, the intellectual level can use the symbol to > symbolize something else than the social level does. > > An example: Bo and a friend goes skiing in the snowy hills of northern > Norway. Bo takes it slow and gets behind his friend. So when the friend > comes to a branch in the trail, he combines his need to pee with his > need to tell Bo where he went and draws a yellow arrow in the snow to > point Bo in the right direction. Now, if a wolf were to find this yellow > arrow, his social reaction would be that someone else has invaded his > territory. However, Bo realizes that the arrow is an intellectual symbol > and will follow the right trail. > > I would say this shows quite clearly that the intellectual level can > interpret a symbol as something completely different than the social > level would. It's true that they don't always need to be in direct conflict, for example I'd say that the development of the early-modern state is an example of how intellectual and social structures were "working together" and both benefited. However, the different levels is, at the core, different ways of viewing/manifest quality - right? Your example isn't in conflict with anything. In a way even, we could say that the wolfs reaction to a certain scent is the same thing as someone recognizing an arrow symbol. Or, take tigers (or whatever) who claw marks into trees, when other tigers see the marks they recognize that there is another tiger about who claims the area. How is that really different from symbol manipulation? At the base I mean. The example with the arrow may be a much more complex thing, but at the base I'd say it is the same. Because the human brain is more complex it makes sense that a human can recognize and make use of many more advanced types of symbols then animals, but this doesn't stand in conflict with anything - ever! [That's the bottom line] So It doesn't hold up. At least I don't see it. This definition of the intellectual level as " symbol manipulation" makes it possible to strech it out forever. It becomes pointless. IMO Regards Chris 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/
