From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 16:09:33 BST
Hi Sam, Rick:
> Can you think of any 'facts' which are not able to be characterised as
> social level static latches? I do think this is an interesting question....
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?
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?
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?
Platt
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 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 16:10:46 BST