Simple things first Bo, We completely agree over the relative precedence of the S/O vs sq/DQ divide - axiomatically at first, borne out by real experience (and wisdom dare I say) ultimately - but fundamentaally unprovable - like any axiomatic choices.
Yes we agree about the signifier and signified distinction being a key point in evolution of "intelligence"... or what I would say as "symbolic manipulation" if you like - representation and communication of (and about) the world, between living things, using "language" for short, in the most general sense (independent of the etymology of "langue" and humans per se). Which fits both social and intellectual. My point. So ... The difference between social and intellectual is the "basis of believing / accepting / understanding" the ideas communicated about the world. At the social level that basis is, well - social - from "others" by direct power if necessary and generally by psychological influence of other kinds. At the intellectual it is from within individuals (and groups) by reasoning free of social power & influence. (Social and intellectual are distinct, but NOT mutually exclusive - they co-evolve. "Freedom" is the key, but no intellect is entirely free of current and historical social influence. I'm a memeticist as you may have noticed.) (It's this free evolution of intellect, free of it's own objective - arrogant / static - definitions, which tempers the traditional view of intellect with a little Zen.) We can find different names for different kinds of intellect and intelligence if you like, but ... Precisely what is considered intellectual, therefore evolves in society. So there can be various historical views, and an evolving future. Perfection IMHO. Ian On 5/14/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian > > On 12 May you wrote: > > > Yes I agree that understanding the intellectual level (I would say > > social and intellectual levels) is the crux of our difference. Has > > been for years - that's why I took your challenge to answer the > > specific question as rhetorical, since you already know my answer. > > OK, the 3rd. level may be influenced by one's understanding of > the 4th, IMO the whole MOQ hinges on it. What your definition of > intellect is I'm not sure about, but I guess you have accepted > Pirsig's latest:: > > Intellectuality occurs when these customs as well as > biological and inorganic patterns are designated with a > sign that stands for them and these signs are manipulated > independently of the patterns they stand for. "Intellect" > can then be defined very loosely as the level of > independently manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and > mathematics can be described as the rules of this sign > manipulation. > > But this is merely language and if language=intellect the social > level disappears. Unless one sees "intellect" before the 4th. level, > (like life before the 2nd. level) but I'm afraid is the prevailing > notion. > > It's useless to ask why Pirsig didn't see the obvious, namely that > intellect occured when humankind started to distinguish between > the sign and what it signify, between a symbol and what it > symbolizes, between language and what it is about, between the > abstract and the concrete ... between the subjective and the > objective. > > The SOL is now so thoroughly documented to be Phaedrus > original vision that the only alternatives are either saying "NO" > without any reasoning (or some impenetrable nonsense like Ron) > or stop talking with me like Matt did, and I must say that Matt's of > May 5 is the best testimonial I've received to this day > > The funny thing I've always thought about Bo is that from > what I understand of his position, it is a bit more > interesting than what other people write about Pirsig here. > It's different and distinctive. > > Ian ctd: > > The reason we agreed to diasgree about what did or didn't work here, > > was my dawning realization that Pirsig's view was simply historical, > > in fact it was you that pointed that out to me. > > Hmmm, wish you would elaborate here. > > > The 4th level "was" SOM when it arose, but not "is" fundamentally so > > for all time. Basically - I believe I've moved on to better evolved > > understandings of "intellect". > > This no "bone" at all, the 4th, level was S/OM when it arose, but > become the 4th static level when the Quality context was > revealed. In the former capacity the S/O divide was a disaster, in > the latter it's the highest and best static value. > > 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/ > 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/
