Hi Steve 23 Dec. u wrote to Bruce:
> Bruce, you should know that Bo's mission here is to promote his own > twist on Pirsig's philosophy rather than the MOQ. I would have no > problem with his doing so if he didn't present his views as "the real > MOQ." Bo believes that Pirsig actually got his own philospohy all > wrong in Lila by not equating the intellectual level with > subject-object metaphysics and creating a "metalevel" to refer to the > MOQ itself rather than calling the MOQ an intellectual pattern of > values. (He sees a big "container logic" problem.) Bo claims to be the > only one (exclusing even Pirsig himself) who understands the true > meaning of the MOQ. All this is not to say that it is not worth > talking to Bo (if you can make heads or tails out of his words > above)--just that you should recognize that he is promoting an > interpretation that Pirsig has personally responded to and rejected on > multiple occasions. I'll give you full credit for having understood my position. Very good. Now I know that you resistance is not based on density, but from reverence for (some of) Pirsig's utterances. Bo before: > > If it started with people teaching each other skills it began with > > animals and birds that obviously learn skills from each other. If > > language was the intellectual hallmark it began deep down in the > > social level (I recently heard that the Neanderthals "had > > language"). Knowledge ditto, if merely "how to" it's social, after > > the Greeks it became "objective knowledge" and that's the proper > > intellectual LEVEL. Written language likewise. Steve: > Bo is correct that language is a social pattern in that the symbols in > a given language are not biological since they are not maintained > throug DNA but are instead passed on as all social patterns are > through unconscious copying of behavior. These copied behaviors are a > set of patterns of value that we could call a culture that is passed > down from generation to generation. Pirsig has stated that the social > level should be limited to humans for clarity, but I think it is > reasonable to think of social patterns exiting among other mammals. I > don't think birds teach one another anything but I could be wrong. I > think it is clear that mammals do copy the behavior of other mammals > (e.g, monkey see-monkey do and "aping.") and there is something like > chimpanzee culture where practices differ from one isolated group to > another. Agreement, there surely was a long time while social value was in its parent level's service and only "took off on a purpose of its own" by way of the human organism. > What other mammals do not seem to have are symbolic representations of > social patterns (language) where the symbols can be manipulated > according to "rules" (intellectual patterns of value) independently > from what they symbolize. But you soon dive into silliness to accommodate for Pirsig's faulty definition of intellect. "Symbolic representation" bah, and even worse "symbolic representation of social patterns (language) ...etc. Animals have the neural capacity for intelligence i.e. storing and retrieval of former experience and playing around with this till new constellation are found, but they do not know that this is "intelligence " and "mental", as little as the social level mankind know that language is "symbolic". This is intellect that looks back and splits the past by its S/O matrix. Why Pirsigs definition of intellect as manipulation of symbols is wrong: INTELLECT IS THE S/O DISTINCTION (in this case symbols in contrast to what is symbolized) > So I think that you are correct that language is a prerequisite for > intellect though we can think of a given language as a social pattern > while we can think of the use of language as being potentially > intellectual. The social LEVEL is the prerequisite for the intellectual LEVEL, Language was that THE social pattern that spawned intellect, there are social level-steeped cultures these days with language as perfect as any and will go on being social immersed in spite of language. > But these sorts of issues -- do animals have social patterns? when did > the first social or intellectual pattern emerge? -- are not so > important as understanding what intellectual value is and what social > value is. Intellectual quality is fairly simple since the word "truth" > usually sums up pretty well what is usually meant. If you can't > qualify a pattern as either true or false or as having to do with > truth, it probably isn't an intellectual pattern. Agreement, only that Truth must be seen in its SOM context, as objectively true not because some prophet have come down from a mountain or out of the desert with messages from God. That's the crux. Steve said that Bo said: > >> The intellectual level began when the social level realized that > >> they could overcome the "memory barrier" of the biological level > >> (death) by passing skills to other generations via language. but is Bruce's Steve: > Bruce, if you keep straight that the levels are shorthand for > collections of types of patterns of value you will be successful in > avoiding such problems as Bo is having above in personifying levels in > having "realizations." Bo also tends to talk about the levels as > different realities. I do not personify the levels and the problems in doing so are not mine. Bodvar 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/
