At 05:42 PM 7/2/2007, you wrote: > [Marsha] > > This seems an example of the difference between > > 'knowing by > > experience' and 'knowing by abstract manipulation'. > > Before Archemedes discovered the mathematical > > principles of displacement, people knew through >experience which > > boats could float, which couldn't and which floated >better. After the > > Archemedes mathematical principles were understood, >boats could > > be better designed for future purposes with more >precise > > accuracy. What do you think? Can this represent >the Social > > Level vs the Intellectual Level? > > I don't let go very well. > > People knew through experience. Ok, thus, >knowing via dq, which I think you and I understand. >Now, as to people knowing through experience and if >that knowing was social, until Archemedes discovered >mathematical principles of displacement? I believe >that's your question. Hmmm, good question! Was there >any abstract thought about boats before Archemedes, >thus, when people knew by experience? I don't even >know if this knowing by experience is social. People >abstractly planned this boat, I believe. Tradition, >the knowledge about this boat that was passed down, >for example, was discussed. People thought abstractly >about these boats, I'd say. There wasn't a boat and >then there was. Now, if this boat that was being made >was made by copying another boat that was nearby and >the builders looked at this other boat and just made a >new boat, I'm leaning social level. Yet, what of this >first boat? With that, I'm leaning intellectual, >something abstract was transferred from the head into >wood or grass. Now what of watching ducks float in >water? Well, that may trigger a boat, and here again, >I'd say something abstract glimmered in this person's >mind. Something was present in the mind that was not >on any other level to be found. It wasn't inorganic, >organic, or social. All's that left over is >intellectual. > >blue and green, >SA
SA, From RMP's 09/2003 letter to Paul Turner: "When getting into a definition of the intellectual level much clarity can be gained by recognizing a parallel with the lower levels. Just as every biological pattern is also inorganic, but not all inorganic patterns are biological; and just as every social level is also biological, although not all biological patterns are social; so every intellectual pattern is social although not all social patterns are intellectual. ..."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." I think the Archemedes example matches this. It just jumped out at me. Seemed to fit. The principles of displacement are independent, manipulable signs, mathematics. I had read this letter, but needed to understand it on some deeper level. There is still something valuable about going from watching a duck or riding a floating log to creating boats. Maybe I'm still misunderstanding, I'm not totally sure that I have it correct. I don't know for certain that this is what RMP had in mind. On the mystical level, everything is still connected to everything and in a constant state of change. But maybe the levels were created for pragmatic purposes, so I want to understand them correctly. Marsha 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/
