Happy Valentine's Day!
At 04:33 AM 2/14/2009, you wrote:
Hi Marsha
13 Feb. you spoke::
> I wasn't clear. I don't think, in general, static patterns of value,
> conceptual constructs, are exclusively linguistic. The spovs, not
> what they are referring to.
Well, it is the "Quality/MOQ" issue that we have been at for
months and as said to Andrê: Why this pompous "concept" term, it
is and remains language. And that of a reality that language refers
to is one of SOM's countless seedlings.
Western languages do have a tendency to mirror a
SOM. BUT, there's more to life than
language. Do you think in nice, neat,
encyclopedic paragraphs? It would be sad if you
did, but I doubt that you do.
> In spovs there are other mental things available, images for example.
Sure there are, when we sleep and dream we see fantastic
scenes, but so do animals and here is the very point. At the levels
below intellect these images aren't "mental". This is too obvious to
be mentioned regarding animals, but at the social (human) level
people regarded dreams as magical experience, visitation from
gods - evil or good - nothing about this being mental or JUST
dreams.
I'm not talking about dreams. Static patterns of
value are much more than words. Think about
something, zebras for instance. What comes to
mind? If all you can experience are words and
sentences, you have my sympathy. Can you conjure
up the memory of the smell of an orange? The
memory of its color, shape, surface texture,
'orange', its taste, etc.? Can you remember
making fresh orange juice? Can you see the pulp
floating in the glass? Memory is more than
words. Does the memory of orange blossoms come
to mind? Orange groves? Do you know you cannot
wear anything the color orange? Does your body
respond? Does your mouth water? I could write
for weeks on what comprises an orange pattern and
its overlapping relationships.
Or do you get only something like:
An orangespecifically, the sweet orangeis the
citrus Citrus sinensis (syn. Citrus aurantium L.
var. dulcis L., or Citrus aurantium Risso) and
its fruit. The orange is a hybrid of ancient
cultivated origin, possibly between pomelo
(Citrus maxima) and tangerine (Citrus
reticulata). It is a small flowering tree growing
to about 10 m tall with evergreen leaves, which
are arranged alternately, of ovate shape with
crenulate margins and 410 cm long. The orange
fruit is a hesperidium, a type of berry.
> But I'm still uncertain about what the Intellectual Level represents.
> I'm trying to imagine if you removed all linguistic associations from
> the fourth level, would there be any patterns left.
Intellect does nor represent anything, it IS the (value of)
subject/object distinction, the one that (among a thousand things)
regards language to be subjective and what it refers to as
objective
A intellectual static pattern of value does not
represent anything? It doesn't refer to anything???
Maybe you can give me an example of an
intellectual-spov. I'm speaking conventionally,
of course? Maybe this type of explanation
might help me understand your complaint.
Zebra is a static pattern of value. What does it
refer to? To which level does it belong?
> I'm not a mathematician, an accomplished musician or a logician to be
> able to answer that from their point-of-view. I would like to hear of
> their experience/opinion of mathematical thought and musical thought.
> My husband could read music and interpret it musically in his mind.
> That seems to be manipulating abstract symbols that does not involve
> language. I'm not sure, and I'm still not understand your
> explanation.
To read music is not different from ordinary reading and people
before the 4th. level mastered writing and reading so
"manipulating symbols" isn't intellect. Intellect - the level - is the (in
this case) "symbol/what it symbolizes" (abstract/concrete)
distinction. What you struggle with is INTELLIGENCE.
I didn't mean that he read the notes and just
chose the right fret, string and finger. I could
do that much. I meant, without guitar, he could
read music and hear it in his head. And much
more, but I don't think I explain it
properly. But maybe you're correct? It
certainly would not be intellectual manipulation
of abstract symbols if you were stuck thinking
that the Intellectual level contained only
subject/object thinking. But that is still an
open question... Any musicians in the house???
> It sounds like you're saying that patterns of the Intellectual kind
> include the understanding that they are purely representative.
Close but not quite. Not in the sense that the other levels are "real"
and intellect "represents" them, this is the fallacy that Pirsig
commits at the beginning of the "symbol manipulation" definition:
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.
Intellect is the value of the "real/representative" distinction.
I do not understand this sentence. I see all
patterns having the same nature, but pointing to
referents of varying evolutionary standing, and
because of that, falling into the different
levels. The pattern E = mc2 and its mathematical
meaning would fall into the Intellectual level. Yes? No?
Thoughts? Bo? Anybody?
Marsha
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
