Bo --
[Ham, previously]:
As you must know, I take exception to your view that concepts
(i.e., intellectual apprehensions) are dependent on language.
[Bo]:
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.
How does intellect (the level) differ from intellect (the Knower)?
Do you believe there is an intellect in the absence of the Knower?
In othr words, do you believe Intellect is a reservoir (level) of
intelligence that exists apart from human consciousness?
[Ham]:
[Pre-lingual man] must 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.
Nor did the cave paintings and engravings depicting animals and
human figures rendered by Palaeolithic man as early as 10,000 BC.
[Bo]:
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".
Yes, and associating actions with events is a rudimentary form of intellect.
[Bo quoting Pirsig]:
"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."
[Ham]:
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 musical 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.
[Bo]:
Agree, Pirsig's definition is of language and language is something
from the social level.
[Ham's comment, as originally posted]:
I also take issue with your assertion: "Intellect can be defined as
the realization that language is a subjective representation."
Intellect is the ability to make sense of knowledge.
The "realization" is not that language represents a sensible
concept; 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.
[Bo]:
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.
Intelligence (sensible inferences from experiential knowledge) is the
PRODUCT of intellect.
Reflecting (thinking, conceptualizing) on what one learns from experience
produces intelligence. This mental process is what we call intellection.
The power to form conclusions from knowledge (empirical facts and sensible
values) is the capacity of the human intellect. I do not see this capacity
exhibited by rocks, plants, or any other species of animal.
My definition of intellect (in case of language) is "the fundamental
split between the concept and the reality conceptualized".
Where is the "split"? What do you see as the difference between a concept
and the conceptualized reality?
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.
But there is no concept independent of the Knower. Do you believe there are
concepts floating around waiting to be "conceptualized? Is that your idea
of Intellect?
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.
Subjective (psychic) awareness is the only apprehensive capability we have.
Without it there can be no experience, knowledge, intelligence,
comprehension, or intellect. This is the most self-evident truth
conceivable, whether language is involved or not. Yet, you want me to deny
it!
I stand by my previous statement:
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.
[Bo]:
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.
I don't know what "carrier of the social value" means, since all values are
sensed by individuals.
Apparently I haven't yet reached the 4th level, inasmuch as I perceive
myself as the "hub of the universe." What is the hub of your universe?
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..
Again, I don't see the point you're trying to make by injecting historical
taboos and religion into the rendering of abstract (representative) symbols.
Whatever the purpose or motive of art, prayer, or religious ritual, it is
performed by individuals who value such expressions. These practices
represent something meaningful, whether it's the custom of the tribe or the
intrinsic value of the individual who engages in them.
[Ham]:
Intellect is what makes experience comprehensible to the subject so
that concepts can be represented symbolically.
[Bo]:
Do I spot a small agreement?
If you accept the subject as the cognizant agent of value, then it would
logically follow that you accept "intellect" as the power of proprietary
cognizance. But your definition of intellect as "the fundamental split
between the concept and the reality conceptualized" seems to negate this
epistemology. So, evidently your peculiar notion of intellect stands in the
way of agreement.
You've accused me of confusing intelligence and intellect, whereas the
former is the product of the latter. I suggest that you have confused
intellect with a primary source -- like MoQ's Quality or
Morality or Michael's Divinity, for example -- and this is why we're at
odds. Perhaps if I could comprehend Pirsig's Static and Dynamic euphemism,
you ontology would make sense to me. As it is, I still can't fathom your
argument.
But thanks for trying, Bo.
--Ham
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/
