Re: LS Denis is searching for Quality and the Net is the new Agora
Hi, Magnus and Squad, I know I said I would shut up on the Language-as-Intellect's-DNA (LAID idea ?) but there's little point here I just can't let go by : Magnus Berg wrote: > > Hi Denis, Bo, Jonathan and Squad > > Denis, I'd like to start by saying that I agreed completely with everything > else you said in your first post some week ago. If I may summarize our > differences I'd say that you include DQ and IntPoVs in language and I don't. > I do and I don't, it depends how you want to see Language. My view is that Language (as an activity) is the Dynamic reality of the Intellectual level ; this is such an banal assertion that it is almost self-evident. DQ and IntPoVs are products of Language just as organisms are products of DNA. The relationship is important here. On the other hand, the Static reality of the Intellectual level is Knowledge (everything that has been said about reality). It is contained in memories, books, HTML pages, and what-have-you. It is the sum of the assertions that have maintained a static latch so far. So DQ and IntPoVs are of Language (whenever they are discussed and redefined) and of Intellect (the Static view of it : Knowledge). The Intellectual level is the reunification of those two views. > You said yourself that "It is a social behaviour which carries intellectual > patterns. A Dynamic process.", and of course you can include such features > in language if you like but I think you muddle up the clear borders between > the levels if you do. DQ and SQ is supposed to be the first cut of reality. > When SQ is later divided into four levels, we shouldn't introduce DQ into it > again. > Wow, wow, wow... not so fast. "We shouldn't introduce DQ into it again" ? Says who ? What's the point of making a distinction if we can't use it again ? Pirsig doesn't do this. When he discusses the brujo, without the introduction of Dynamic Quality at the social level this whole discussion is pretty pointless ! When we talk about biology, leaving DQ out means not talking about evolution ! Any comprehensive description of the levels (as PROCESSES) *must* include DQ. It is the only thing that explains changes in the MOQ. As for the rest of your post, I mostly agree. It is a high-Quality thing to agree that a atom exists even if we don't know about it. This isn't the "truth", but a good thing to agree on (until another denomination covers the atom phenomenon) if we want to escape solipsist charges. A little double-think is useful there. Saying that QUALITY, and not an atom, is the "real" thing out there has mystic quality, but intellectually it doesn't go far. That's all folks. Be good. Denis MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
Re: LS Denis is searching for Quality and the Net is the new Agora
Hi Denis, Bo, Jonathan and Squad Denis, I'd like to start by saying that I agreed completely with everything else you said in your first post some week ago. If I may summarize our differences I'd say that you include DQ and IntPoVs in language and I don't. You said yourself that "It is a social behaviour which carries intellectual patterns. A Dynamic process.", and of course you can include such features in language if you like but I think you muddle up the clear borders between the levels if you do. DQ and SQ is supposed to be the first cut of reality. When SQ is later divided into four levels, we shouldn't introduce DQ into it again. When I think about it, it almost sounds as if I take Aristotle's side against the sophists. He too was trying to rid intellect from social influence while the sophists (mis)used the social and behavioural components of language. But this is not quite the case, I acknowledge that intellectual patterns are totally dependent on language (social patterns). As you said: > What else is an intellectual pattern without an inorganic > pattern (sound, sign) to support it ? An Idea ? Can you express it > without words ? Can you think of it without words ? Would you even be > able to think at all without words ? No, I wouldn't. Aristotle thought he could, but the MoQ says no. On the other hand, I can, using the MoQ, know how to divide a word I say or write into four components, each component being a pattern of a certain level. What I'm saying is that while each level are dependent on the lower, they are nevertheless separable. And I think we gain much by trying. Bo asked: > What strange vessel is Intellect that it can be used by SOM, perhaps > eptied of it and filled with other contents? Nah, let me use the dimension metaphor. SOM was probably one of the first entities that expanded reality much in the intellect dimension. In a way, that's still a "vessel", it can be emptied and filled with other contents, i.e. patterns, just as the biological level may be emptied (the dinos 65'' years ago) and filled again. And Jonathan said: > I think find this unconvincing since I consider ALL patterns to require a > language to sustain them. It may not be a verbal language, but must > necessarily be a lexical construct of symbolic entities. Otherwise, you > can't call it a pattern! > I challenge Magnus to present an example of a pattern for which this does > not apply. I know you think that "all pattens require a language to sustain them", but I don't, and I still don't think the MoQ does. Patterns below the language level, i.e. biological and inorganic, doesn't require a language. Denis put it: > the Bohr-Rutherford model of an atom isn't an atom but a model. The model requires language but the atom doesn't. Your usual complaint about such assertions is: "But we can't *know* this!". No, we can't, because knowing is an intellectual excercise and we can't value an atom directly. The next best thing is to have a metaphysics to guide us. And if we adopt the MoQ, we can almost know that the atom doesn't require language. We can't come any closer than that to knowing, and we know about the preconditions, i.e. the MoQ. Magnus MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
Re: LS Denis is searching for Quality and the Net is the new Agora
Hi Magnus and Squad,
Magnus has critiziced my assertion that the recursive function of the
Intellect (the function described in the analogy of the map which
includes the map) is really a function of Language. In doing so, he
destroys my idea that words are primary Intellectual static patterns. I
believe that this springs from a misunderstanding of Language. Let me
explain how I see Language :
Magnus Berg wrote:
> I'm not convinced. A language is nothing without intellectual patterns,
> except maybe inorganic patterns. The egyptian hieroglyphs was just carvings
> on papyrus before we knew the meaning of them, that is, before we knew which
> intellectual patterns they represented.
>
Magnus, I believe you see Language as a set of grammatical rules plus a
lexicon. Wrong. It is a social behaviour which carries intellectual
patterns. A Dynamic process. Any mapping of it isn't Language but a
model of it. Just as the Bohr-Rutherford model of an atom isn't an atom
but a model. The papyrus you mention isn't language but a model of a
speech.
The intellectual patterns YOU talk about are Values, which cannot be
defined. What else is an intellectual pattern without an inorganic
pattern (sound, sign) to support it ? An Idea ? Can you express it
without words ? Can you think of it without words ? Would you even be
able to think at all without words ?
Words are ALL we can talk about. ('scuse for this Descartes quote... or
Hobbes, I'm not sure)
When we found the hieroglyphs, we knew they were signs, the
representation of words, but we had lost the relationship between them
and OUR OWN WORDS.
We couldn't translate.
Once the Stone of Rosette was found, we had a TRANSLATION. The
relationship was re-established and we could translate the meaning of
the text in OUR OWN LANGUAGE. Our own values. But we haven't discovered
the language AS IT WAS THEN.
No one can truly say "I speak ancient Egyptian". That's ludicrous.
I've done a lot of translation work and I can tell you something : when
you translate you substract and add A LOT of meaning, whether you want
or not. The trick is getting it as close as you can, but you never get
it perfect (except for really simple assertions, like "the cat ate the
mouse").
A language is more than a lexicon and rules, it is a whole way of
perceiving and dividing the world. It says a lot about what a human
society values.
Inuits have 15 words for "snow", Japanese don't distinguish "sea" from
"ocean", Hopi indians have the same word for "green" and "yellow". You
distinguish between a bush and a tree, but do you think Inuits do ?
"Shallow" doesn't exist in french. "Effleurer" (touching ever so
lightly, like a caress) doesn't exist in english. They can be
translated, but the meaning isn't whole in the target language like it
is in the source language.
> On the other hand, intellectual patterns *must* have a language to sustain
> itself. Otherwise it would effectively disappear. It would seem they are
> inseparable but it's only because of the level dependency and I think it's
> important to try.
Those intellectual patterns (in your interpretation) being Value, being
Quality, wouldn't disappear (Quality wouldn't disappear in we weren't
there, that's solipsism).
Only the static patterns (the words) would disappear. And so would
Intellect.
Since Intellect grows out of Language, the distinction IS important, but
so is the relationship between them. The problem is that you try to
separate the static patterns (words) from their value. That's insane. A
word is : sign + meaning, or it isn't a word. Christ, it's not even a
sign !
Writing is just an alternate support (an alternate inorganic pattern)
for words, but the distinction is that it is a complex static pattern
WITHOUT PLACE FOR DYNAMIC QUALITY. The analogy has its limits : a man
can change his mind and reformulate his ideas, a text cannot.
The same goes for other alternate supports for meaning : plans,
drawings, models, equations. They can be described by language but the
reverse isn't true. So Language is primary but isn't the whole
Intellectual level.
> The definition above doesn't help much in that respect.
The first part of it does (see my first post this month, the distinction
between phonems and words). The important thing is that without words
(in the first stages) there was no INTELLECTUAL value. Words were the
first intellectual values. Or more precisely, the first static latch of
Intellectual Dynamic Quality. Quality was still at large, but a new
avatar of it was born.
> My definition of language goes something like:
>
> A set of mappings between an intellectual pattern and another pattern, (possibly
> also intellectual).
>
By your definition, drawings, plans and maps are Language. It is when
Intellectual patterns can describe all other Intellectual patterns that
we really have something that can be called Language.
The metalinguistic function is a vital part of Language's definition.
It is strange to think that
Re: LS Denis is searching for Quality and the Net is the new Agora
Hi Magnus and LilaQs, Magnus wrote: >A language is nothing without intellectual patterns, > except maybe inorganic patterns. The egyptian hieroglyphs was just carvings > on papyrus before we knew the meaning of them, that is, before we knew which > intellectual patterns they represented. > > On the other hand, intellectual patterns *must* have a language to sustain > itself. Otherwise it would effectively disappear I think find this unconvincing since I consider ALL patterns to require a language to sustain them. It may not be a verbal language, but must necessarily be a lexical construct of symbolic entities. Otherwise, you can't call it a pattern! I challenge Magnus to present an example of a pattern for which this does not apply. Though this may seem tangential to the topic of the month, it is actual rather central. Metaphysics is all about finding a language to describe reality. The Greeks deserve the credit for constructing what was probably man's first well-defined language of philosophy, and other philosophers up to and including Pirsig have used (and tried to modify) that language ever since. Jonathan MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
Re: LS Denis is searching for Quality and the Net is the new Agora
Hi Denis and Squad > > That's a truly unique feature, you can't have a cup of coffee inside itself. > > You can't have any other type of pattern inside itself. > > > > Right. But it's language, not Intellect, that has that propriety. > In my previous post, I truncated the official definition for rhetoric > purposes, so I'll complete it now : > > "Among the many subjects possible for discourse, are the languages > themselves. They can, in any language, be described. This type of > reflexive use of language constitutes what we call the metalanguage, and > is the "sine qua non" condition of linguistics". I'm not convinced. A language is nothing without intellectual patterns, except maybe inorganic patterns. The egyptian hieroglyphs was just carvings on papyrus before we knew the meaning of them, that is, before we knew which intellectual patterns they represented. On the other hand, intellectual patterns *must* have a language to sustain itself. Otherwise it would effectively disappear. It would seem they are inseparable but it's only because of the level dependency and I think it's important to try. The definition above doesn't help much in that respect. My definition of language goes something like: A set of mappings between an intellectual pattern and another pattern, (possibly also intellectual). This way, a usual language like english, is a set of mappings between intellectual patterns and mostly other types of patterns. On the other hand, a grammar is a set of mappings between intellectual patterns and other intellectual patterns, (the usual language). Think about it, I doubt the Greek language developed much during the birth of SOM, only the use of the existing language. The intellectual patterns using the language evolved, the language probably also changed, but only to be able to discuss the intellectual progress. Magnus MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
Re: LS Denis is searching for Quality and the Net is the new Agora
Hi, Squad ! Bored again, so here I am (I should have applied for a degree in philosophy it seems, my work in linguistics is in the pits). First, thanks to David T. and Marco for their praises, it seems like I'm going to have to practice humility a lot to deflate my head now (and I never was very good at humility in the first place) :( Anyway, just a few things I wanted to add. Marco wrote: > > If I understand ... the birth of intellectual level was evoked by societies, > to become more competitive. Individuals begun to use a simple language, for > example in an initial form of sound signals, to communicate dangers, or > attack strategies. In that phase this simple "animal language" was only a > "strange", dynamic social pattern; but language is ... alive. In one > particular animal, MAN, evolved to words, opinions, philosophies... and to > cave pictures, arts, science, technology... in one word: Intellect. > Two rectifications : first, my belief (but I could be wrong) is that the ACCIDENTAL birth of a dynamic language allowed human societies to become more competitive. The reason why language became dynamic may be that its support switched from DNA-encoded "instinct" to memory. It might also be a strange change in the memory process (derived from a genetic mutation), making it more flexible. I don't know if anyone knows about a series of novels centered around a prehistoric character named 'Ayla', but this series presented a cro-magnon girl raised among the neanderthals. They thought this girl was stupid becaused it took her so long to learn just about anything. You see, the author (Jean Auel) described the neanderthals as having an ancestral memory : learning for them was more like a process of remembering things. How to cook, to hunt, to talk. Their memory was quite encyclopedic, but the downside of it was that any new concept had a hard time making it through. I guess you see where I'm going. Many animals have such an ancestral memory, never having to learn much because everything they need is already there. But when you start with nothing, if you going to survive you need a *very* dynamic memory. When your communication code (your language) is contained in such a memory, it is bound to change much more quickly, ultimately taking a life of its own. My second rectification isn't really one. It's about art. Art doesn't seems to equate with any one of the levels. It's not biological, surely not inorganic, to say it is social looks like insulting art to me, and intellectual ?... well, my definition of Q-Intellect doesn't seem to have much place for art. Q-Intellect is about defining, and defining art... well, we know what Pirsig thinks about *that*, don't we ? (Avid, Roger and David B. had a argument about that in the moq_discuss forum) Remember, Pirsig said there were 5 codes of Morality, the last one being the Code of Quality, or Code of Art. Art is the trace that a Dynamic Event (one might say : a mystic event) leaves in our perception. It is a rendering of this experience, and as such must be left out of the levels. It transcends them, IMHO. > Then all these .. adult intellectual patterns, begun two different wars: on > one > side to get free, the clash against society; on the other side, to obtain > Agreement, each one against the others. > You might have noticed it, but my last post didn't talk much about the social level. Re-reading the above part about memory, you can see that a biological change seems to be the root of language's dynamicism : so where is the social level ? Well, I think the biological and the social are in the first stages pretty much interlinked, if different (so much for easy distinctions among the levels, as I said in the previous post). But still, take ants. Wonderful social organisation, with a species-specific language (static), and a lot of preprogrammed stuff in their DNA. Their station, function, much of their behaviour, etc. Well, ants are still capable of social evolution, because their behaviour, while very pre-determined, still has room for change. When a african species (called "red ants" in french) was imported to Europe by boats (some 20, 30 years ago, according to entomologists), they encountered a local species that used some of its members as food-storage devices. They fed them until they were bloated, stocked them in chambers, and then forced them to regurgitate food when needed. After a few wars and raids (yes, they have that too, we're not the only ones), entomologists found that the red ants had copied the trick ! They had not only captured the storage-ants, but started feeding some of their own to become ones ! This example is meant to show that communication is only a part of the (structured) behaviours that make up a society. And that dynamism in behaviour (leading to more complex behaviours) doesn't always have to equate in a new level. But the difference with language is that it conveys more than just itself. It conveys meaning. And
