Re: MD What is a fact?

From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Fri Apr 04 2003 - 12:37:31 BST

  • Next message: Elizaphanian: "Re: MD What is a fact?"

    Hi Platt,

    Thanks for this response.

    > In the sense that "facts" are embedded in language, and language is a
    > social level phenomena, I suppose all facts can be considered social
    > level static latches. Is that what you mean?

    Partly - I think that is right, but I also think that something can only be
    considered a fact when it is accepted as such by a community of people.

    > Which leads to an interesting question. If we accept Pirsig's definition
    of
    > the intellectual level to be the same as mind, and if mind is "the
    > collection and manipulation of symbols created in the brain, that stand
    > for patterns of experience," and if symbols are only meaningful in the
    > context (thanks Rick) of a society, then is not intellect basically
    social?

    Or - does not society (as we experience it) saturated with intellect? We can
    still debate the hows, whys and whens of the interaction. BTW I think this
    is an area where my 'eudaimonic' MoQ manages to avoid problems....

    > We know, of course, that all levels are dependent on the levels below
    > them. So it's no surprise that intellect has a lot of social stuff in it.
    So
    > what makes intellect stand out?
    > My guess is that what makes intellect rise above social is the initial
    > creative act of making a symbol. Just as a thing doesn't exist if we've
    > never observed it, a thing doesn't exist if we've never named
    > (symbolized) it. So what separates the social from the intellectual is the
    > individual who creates symbols to form patterns of meaning. Though we
    > inherit most of our symbols and symbolic patterns, someone had to be
    > first.
    > Just thinking out loud. Make sense to you?

    Lots of sense. God brought the animals to Adam so that he could name them...
    he bites the fruit of the tree of knowledge.. etc etc
    To my mind 'intellect' does not describe something distinct between level
    three and level four of the MoQ. What is distinct is the creative
    individual, which is why I think the individual (properly conceived) is the
    best way to characterise level 4.

    Sam

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 04 2003 - 13:05:41 BST