Everybody Changed the title. See comment below
> Chris: >> 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. [Magnus] > Sure it is. It's in direct conflict with your (and Bo's) claim that > symbols are only social value. Oh, come now. This is just nonsense. It still isn't in conflict with anything within a MOQ context. We will keep getting back to this. > Chris: >> 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. > That's right, at the base of each level, it's hard to tell what is what. > The higher level must first find something it can use for it's own > purposes, and in this case, the intellectual level found the static > language developed by a society. > > Take the development of the spoken word. At first, it was simply > different sounds that triggered a certain feeling in the listeners. A > high pitched "Hoo hoo" means danger, adrenaline starts pumping and > everyone runs for their lives. But when intellect starts interfering, it > used the ability to make sounds and turned it into a dynamic way to > convey meaning. *That's* the crucial difference between social language > and intellectual language. Intellect de-couples the static link between > the social "symbol" and the biological knee-jerk reaction. This feat is > a far more dynamic step than the ability to rationalize about the S/O > division. > Chris: >> This definition of the intellectual level as " symbol manipulation" makes >> it >> possible to strech it out forever. It becomes pointless. > > Not pointless at all. Try to imagine a reality in which we were still > bound by those static links between social "symbols" and biological > knee-jerk reactions. We'd still be living in trees. About all of this. Evolution happens within each level as well - indeed, that's mostly where it happens. New levels develop very rarely, and the fact that the static biological patterns evolve to such a sophisticated level that they (within a social level frame perhaps) can handle advanced symbol manipulation doesn't say anything about the big picture. There still isn't a trace of a level conflict, and that needs to be there for it to be a MOQ level. 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/
