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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:52 GMT