From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Oct 10 2003 - 21:40:30 BST
Hi
Can ritual exist without language.
Could humans copy each other's actions
visually and form rituals? If so is ritual a form of intelligence?
Is ritual the manipulation of the visual language?
regards
David (mad dog) Morey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: MD Intellectual level - New letter from Pirsig
> Dear Bo,
>
> You indeed got me wrong again 9 Oct 2003 09:54:05 +0200:
> '[the intellectual level] 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.'
>
> I have no idea what you mean with 'a detached mind-intellect where the
rest
> of experience exists as symbols, thoughts or ideas'. Mind = intellectual
> level, according to Pirsig (in 'Lila's Child') and I see nothing wrong
with
> that. Detaching that from 'the rest of experience' and saying that that
rest
> of experience consists of symbols, thoughts and/or ideas seems very
strange
> to me. If the mind is anything it is symbols/thoughts/ideas (that stand
for
> the rest of experience AND for parts of itself, when it symbolizes/thinks
> about/forms ideas about symbols/thoughts/ideas).
> So that can't have been what I meant.
>
> I wrote 'The intellectual level ... is not a value but the sum total of
the
> patterns of value of a specific type'.
>
> Would that be more acceptable to you if you read 'The intellectual level
...
> is not A value but the sum total of the PATTERNS OF value of a specific
> type'?
>
> The intellectual level definitely IS value (just like the whole rest of
> experience). I had problems with limiting it to just A value in your
> definition of the intellectual level as 'the value of seeing
> symbol-manipulation as different from the rest of experience'.
>
> You continue with:
> 'people of old used language [manipulated symbols] without "knowing" that
> words are symbols standing for
> something else. Thus what heralded Intellect was the DISCOVERY of this
> schism. ... And Jaynes' bi-cameral theory is a very good description of
how
> this inside-out-turn happened.'
>
> I agree that before say the 3rd century BC people didn't know that they
were
> manipulating symbols, that using words didn't imply direct contact with,
> power over and participation in reality. This bi-cameral mind theory may
> (from what I read on this list) very well be a good description of how
these
> people's minds 'worked'.
> I agree that thinking about thinking, knowing that the 'something else'
that
> words symbolize differs from the symbols, knowing your own thoughts from
> those of others (or from those of Gods), did mean a huge change.
>
> But ... I still disagree that this change was THE change from social
> patterns of value to intellectual patterns of value. Even before the 3rd
> century BC the 'standing for' relation in the patterns of value was there,
> even if people didn't know it for what it was. They definitely did
> experience something different when running into a tiger, when running
into
> a human being 'dancing' a tiger and when hearing someone else shrieking:
'A
> TIGER!'.
> The patterns of value maintained by copying (symbolic) rationales (e.g.
> associating a strong tiger with a healthy people and therefore wanting to
be
> like a tiger) WITHOUT knowing a symbol for a symbol were not essentially
> different from the patterns of value maitained by copying rationales WITH
> the knowledge that they were 'only' manipulating symbols.
>
> How can 'experience that a symbol is different from and YET LIKE SOME
OTHER
> EXPERIENCE' evade your understanding? 'Is different from and yet like' is
> just a redescription of 'stands for', the element you liked in 'it is the
> "standing for" relationship that characterizes 4th level experience'.
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 Oct 10 2003 - 22:13:27 BST