Ham
13 Feb. you wrote:
> Excuse me, but I have some comments on your 2/13 post to Marsha.
Marsha wrote:.
> > I do not consider "concept" to be language only. Intellect may be
> > language only, but I'm not sure. In my experience, concept may be
> > bits and pieces of all sorts of mental stuff.
Bo explains:
> > Look, it was the intellectual level that made language into
> > "concepts". People of ancient times (social level) prattled, sang
> > and wrote books (from Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner)
"But if one studies the early books of the Bible or if one
studies the sayings of primitive tribes today, the intellectual
level is conspicuously absent. The world is ruled by Gods who
follow social and biological patterns and nothing else."
> > ... but had no idea of language as something only having
> > subjective relevance, this because they knew no subject/object
> > distinction Only with the 4th. level did language get the said
> > quality as "bits and pieces of all sorts of mental stuff". Try to
> > climb up from intellect's (SOM's) perch to MOQ's meta-level.
> As you must know, I take exception to your view that concepts (i.e.,
> intellectual apprehension) are dependent on language.
My view that? My view is that intellect (the level) has made
language an abstract wordplay that (may) reflect a concrete reality
out there. This is merely ONE of intellect's countless S/O splits.
> Surely our pre-lingual ancestors observing the sun rising every morning
> and setting every night, or the repetitive passing of the seasons,
> apprehended these phenomena as cycling events.
There may have been many none-language humanoid species,
but like apes I doubt if they observed such things as the heavenly
bodies' regular movements. It ws a pure biological level existence.
> They must also have learned that placing a fish over a fire changed its
> texture so as to make it more edible. These are simple concepts, no
> doubt, but understanding and applying them did not require the use of
> language.
I agree, but when it comes to food preparation by fire I believe we
are in the language era. However animals don't need language to
think. A crow outside my window has learned how to hoist food
balls (intended for the smaller ones) by its beak and put the foot on
the string and thus get to it. It just uses its intelligence and that is
very much pre-lingual. It somehow visualizes things and uses
visual logic, "if I do this so will happen".
> Nor did the cave paintings and engravings depicting animals and human
> figures rendered by Palaeolithic man as early as 10,000 BC. (Were it
> not for the likes of Marsha, we would forget that art is a non-lingual
> conception.)
But at 10 thousand BC language was established long long ago
(Neanderthals 50 thousand plus BC) so the cave painters surely
communicated by language, however the pure act of painting may
be non-lingual then ... it still is.
> > In the same letter Pirsig offered a new definition of intellect:
"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."
> > This should (regarding language) have been
> > "Intellect" can be defined as the realization that language is a
> > subjective representations of an objective reality."
> With respect to both you and Pirsig, these are woefully inadequate
> definitions of "intellect". "Manipulable signs" are only the symbols
> of concepts, like plus and minus marks, words or musicial notations.
> They may represent concepts, or suggest intellectual activity, but
> they do not define the intellectual faculty itself. Moreover, such
> symbols are but meaningless scratchings to observers who lack the
> intellect to interpret them.
Agree, Pirsig's definition is of language and language is something
from the social level
> I also take issue with your assertion: Intellect is the ability to
> make sense of knowledge.
Back to my crow, I'm sure it makes very much sense of knowledge
(even if non-lingual) I'm afraid you confuse intelligence and
intellect, an all too common fallacy.
> The "realization" is not that language represents a sensible concept;
My definition of intellect (in case of language) is "the fundamental
split between the concept and the reality conceptualized".
> it is the subjective (proprietary) awareness of the concept. You
> consistently slight the "power of knowing" in your analysis of
> intellect, as if to suggest that the Knower doesn't exist.
You keep confusing intellect and intelligence, and by Jove you are
not the only one. "Aware of" what exactly is that, my crow is surely
aware of the food in its non-lingual way. And -after the coming of
language knowing the name isn't the intellectual LEVEL.
> Intellect is not some extra-human realm of knowledge. It's the
> realization of the INDIVIDUAL SELF. To deny the reality of the subject
> is a perversion of experiential reality and, in my opinion, does a
> disservice to epistemology and philosophical understanding.
Because the human organism became the carrier of the social
value, the intellectual level necessarily had to be "human". But on
another planet the carrier may be some "alien" organism, and this
alien having reached the 4th, level (but NOT the Quality Meta-
level) will be as sure as you are that it is "his" SELF which is the
hub of the universe.
> Words, symbols, and language are representations.
Ham, come to your senses, The social level didn't know intellect's
"an abstract, symbolic representation versus the concrete, real
thing" The cave paintings weren't decorative depictions of
animals, but magical means of bringing them to their pit-falls, or
some taboo in some or other way. The same reality is reflected in
latter day "social" phenomena, for instance religion where there's a
ban on pictures. Particularly in Islam and Jewdom which is the
most "social" such, the Intellect-influenced Christendom. not so.
And language in prayer isn't just some less-than-real concepts,
but supposed to be a magical means of getting in touch with the
forces that govern existence. FYI. the Catholics still regard the
sacramental bread and wine to be the real articles, while the more
intellectual Lutheranism says they are just symbols..
> Intellect is what makes experience comprehensible to the subject so
> that concepts can be represented symbolically.
Do I spot a small agreement?
> Thanks for your time.
It's a pleasure.
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/
