Magnus On 17 March wrote:
> Aren't both of you saying that symbol manipulation is *not* a level 4 > activity? So if it's not level 4, and you say that the social level > don't see a threat, then I assumed you mean it's social. Is that so > far fetched? I'm pretty sure everyone else read it like that, or? I am saying that biology evolved the neural capacity to - you know - but at that level there is no "manipulation of symbols" (MOS) any more than we know that a dream is a dream when dreaming. This capacity was adopted by the social level and with language added the symbols that at the bio. were images (I guess) became words (silent) but still not recognized as "abstract thoughts in a mind", this knowledge is entirely intellect's. Get the point? But this particular knowledge isn't the threat to social value, rather intellect's fallout notion that beliefs (in God, in good/bad (moras) in honor ...etc.) are just some subjective taking place in (their) mind. THAT is a world-shaking upheaval and we see that the Muslim world won't have the Western dissolution of morals at any price. Magnus: > This gets really strange. You say biology doesn't know that a scent is > just a signal, and the social level doesn't know that a word is just a > sound symbolizing something else. This distinction belongs solely to > intellect. Ok, I mostly agree with that. Good. From strange to acceptance in no time. > But then, you say this distinction belongs to intellect, yet it is not > level 4? The inversion that befalls intellect from its SOM role to its MOQ role is crucial. To SOM "intellect" is thinking (the "manipulation" part of the MOS only) while MOQ's 4th level's value is the S/O distinction, in this case symbols as different from what they symbolize. > So, a word is not social, and not your level 4, so what is it? As moqists we are supposed to see everything in the level context and from that perspective words (language) is originally a social pattern, but brought into the 4th. level words became symbols that stands for something else. About lower levels' patterns becoming part of the upper's repertoire and there getting a different role is no mystery. Matter becoming "flesh" at the 2.nd. level for instance. > The only thing I've done is to define the levels in more detail, > thereby making it possible to discuss a time/place where humans aren't > the only ones making quality judgments. As Pirsig says (in the PT letter) a line must be drawn somewhere for the social level lest it becomes useless (its biological roots show) as must be done for intellect, and he actually draws its line with the Greek thinkers (in MOQ this means SOM), but then he possibly saw the SOL implication and hastily added the cryptic "Oriental Intellect". > As I said in my previous post, at least Chris is making a much larger > change to the MoQ since he need to extend the biological level to > encompass much of what we mean by intellect. If you don't agree it > would be very interesting to see you two resolve that one. I'm reeling after all these years and do not follow messages not directly for me so where Chris .. extends biology into intellect ?? but spell it out to me and I'll try. 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/
