From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu Oct 09 2003 - 08:54:05 BST
Wim and all Sapiens
7 Oct. you wrote:
> I have to disappoint you. Unlike you suggest 6 Oct 2003 17:40:38
> +0200, I do not disagree with Robert P.'s definition of the
> intellectual level as the collection and manipulation of symbols that
> stand for patterns of experience. I do disagree with your alternative,
> "Intellect is the value of seeing symbol-manipulation as different
> from the rest of experience".
I never seem to get you right. My fault.
> The intellectual level (which I guess
> you mean when you write 'intellect' here)
Yes, my Q-intellect abbreviation was not accepted by Squark.
> is not a value but the sum
> total of the patterns of value of a specific type.
Not a value??? This strongly indicates a detached mind-intellect
where the rest of experience exist as symbols, thoughts or ideas -
which is old SOM.
> It is the 'standing
> for' relationship that characterizes 4th level experience, the
> experience that a symbol is different from and yet like some other
> experience.
But this looks promising. Listen (again) to my reasoning: Symbol-
manipulation in itself is merely language, but people of old used
language without "knowing" that words are symbols standing for
something else. Thus what heralded Intellect was the DISCOVERY of
this schism. Which in turn grew to dominate reality as SOM). And
Jaynes' bi-cameral theory is a very good description of how this inside-
out-turn happened.
That's why I agree with your statement that it is the "standing for"
relationship that characterize the 4th level, but am unsure about
intellect as a detached ("worthless") place where the rest of
experience exist as symbols. It may sound as monomania, but my ....
> "Intellect is the value of seeing symbol-manipulation as different
> from the rest of experience".
.is the only definition able to survive. Why do we keep on - six years
now - about the intellectual level if nothing is "rotten"? Only because
this person has a fixed idea? Hardly. If the MOQ is supposed to be a
farewell to SOM it's intellectual level must also be non-SOMish. And
at times it looks as if we are on the brink of "cold fusion", but then it
slips away. For instance this:
> experience that a symbol is different from and yet like some other
> experience.
One moment it looks like my own "value of the S/O divide", but the
"...yet like some other experience" bit evades my understanding. Try
again.
Sincerely
Bo
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 : Thu Oct 09 2003 - 08:55:21 BST