On 30/06/2007, at 6:55 PM, MarshaV wrote: > At 04:11 AM 6/30/2007, you wrote: > >> On 29/06/2007, at 7:31 PM, MarshaV wrote: >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Marsha >>> >> >> Marsha also said: >> >>>> Greetings, >>>> >>>> Okay how about if I change the language, or am I totally off track? >>>> >>>> Try this: >>>> >>>> An example of Social Level SPoVs might be like those connected with >>>> ancient boat building. Boats were built dependent on the shared >>>> and >>>> repetitive experience of having observed which boats could float, >>>> which couldn't, and which floated better. >>>> >>>> After Archemedes discovered the principles of displacement, >>>> mathematical calculations could be used to design and build a >>>> better >>>> boat for more precise purposes. These might be an example of >>>> Intellectual Level SPoVs. >> >> >> >> And finally Marsha wrote: >> >> Thank you for responding. It seemed wise to skip the 'what is known >> in mind' and 'what is knowledge' approach. This example seemed to >> differentiate even sophisticated patterns based on repetitive >> experience as the social level, and patterns based on mathematical >> abstraction as the intellectual level. Archemedes discovery of the >> principle of displacement had far reaching applications other than >> ship building and demonstrates the genius behind intellect too. It >> puts knowing how to bake a pie in the social level, pi in the >> intellectual level, and all seems right with the world. But I'll >> wait to see if there is a challenge. >> >> Hi Marsha, >> >> Thanks for taking the time to explain your ideas. Not letting go of >> your ideas unless a better idea comes along is a good quality to >> have. >> >> My question is; don't dogs and cats know things from experience? >> >> Cheers, >> >> David. > > > Hi David, > > Hahahahah. Just when I think I've graduated from kindergarten, > another question. Knowing is magic (experience), so my answer is yes. > > Marsha
Hi Marsha and SA, I'm having difficulties understanding RMP's letter to Paul now thanks to Marsha's pointing out flaws in my thinking. I think our difference are over what we would classify as intellectual or social. RMP seems to take different standpoints on this in the same letter and contradicts himself in the process. Let me point out my reasoning: At some stages in the letter he seems to want the intellectual level to be applied after the Greeks. Here's some quotes where he argues for this. RMP writes: "Thus, though it may be assumed that the Egyptians who preceded the Greeks had intellect, it can be doubted that theirs was an intellectual culture." "Solon, the Athenian lawgiver, could be the pivotal point. Maybe Solomon. Maybe the early Greek philosophers. Who knows? 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." "And since everything is thus social, why even have the word? I think the same happens to the term, "intellectual," when one extends it much before the Ancient Greeks.* If one extends the term intellectual to include primitive cultures just because they are thinking about things, why stop there? How about chimpanzees? Don't they think? How about earthworms? Don't they make conscious decisions? How about bacteria responding to light and darkness? How about chemicals responding to light and darkness? Our intellectual level is broadening to a point where it is losing all its meaning. " However, at other stages he wants the intellectual level to be related directly to 'abstract thought' whose rules are mathematics, logic and grammar. "You have to cut it off somewhere, and it seems to me the greatest meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is confined to the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no corresponding particular experience and which behave according to rules of their own." ""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." The point seems lost on RMP that the Egyptians as far as I know used grammar and mathematics and they were before the Greeks. He makes the distinction also between intellect and intellectual. However he contradicts himself again by defining them as the same thing as shown in the two quotes above! IMHO, until a better idea comes along, intellect should be kept as what he has defined both intellect and intellectual above and that upon using the rules of intellect 'mathematics, grammar and logic' one is being intellectual. Therefore one can have a social 'thought', but unless it is manipulated in some way then it is only social. Once this 'thought' is manipulated using the rules of grammar, logic or mathematics then one is being intellectual. What do you think? Cheers, David. 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/
