Hello Bo, You said, "Pirsig's "symbol manipulation" definition of intellect is way off."
I am so with you on that. I would like to know what he was thinking when he said it. He seems to fly in the face of his own book! Does this represent a change of mind for Mr. Pirsig, or a lack of understanding on our part? I think we'd have to know what he meant by the word "symbol". Based on our knowledge of the levels, it can't possibly have to do with the everyday understanding of "symbols". Far too elementary. I would like to think he had something very specific in mind. Rhetoric is defined in many ways. Wikipedia tells us that, "rhetorical topics derive from Aristotle's belief that there are certain predictable ways in which humans (particularly non-specialists) draw conclusions from premises". A fundamental theme of modern rhetorical studies emphasizes the nature of persuasive power. Persuasion is used to generate conclusions, and conclusions are the seeds of internalized belief. Could the "symbol manipulation" of scientists be seen as a way of persuading non-specialists to focus on the attainable "how" while discounting the "why"? Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. 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/
