From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu Nov 27 2003 - 10:44:28 GMT
Paul and People
First of all, I haven't gone as deeply into the Jaynes' case as desirable,
haven't even got hold of his book, but merely skimmed the Jaynes'
site essays and discussions. The reason (except for lazinesss) is that I
somehow regard "mission accomplished". Keeping the "original"
Pirsig words in mind (from the 1993 letter: .....)
PIRSIG: (my capitals)
"I don't know if they were more in touch with DQ, but certainly they
were less in touch with modern intellectual patterns that declare
those voices to be illegal. IT IS THE EASIEST THING IN THE
WORLD TO CALL A THOUGHT A VOICE. I think this is what the
ancients did and this is in fact done in the last chapter of Lila."
...things fit the social-intellect transition so well that going deeper into
details will reveal nothing about the socio-intellect issue. However, it
may have bearings on the bio-social one too because Jaynes speaks
about the bi-cameral epoch as different from the animal stage (Q-
biological) thus it (the bi-cameral) may concur with the social level.
The obvious fact that Jaynes' is no moqist and sees these things as
having a brain (physical) cause does not detract from its value.
To your message of 26 Nov:
> Yes, I think that when language is manipulating symbols into patterns
> of thought it is intellectual; when it is an extension of ritual and
> custom it is social.
I only zoom in on this tiny bit, because it is most significant. Language
has its origin in social reality as a great social "tool"/pattern - because
communication is such an intimate part of social existence - and
brought communication out of mere ... whatever we see as the
means of the human(oid) society signal system. Over the tens of
thousands of years writing developed (cuneiform, hieroglyphs ..etc).
I am as you know not completely happy with the "manipulation of
symbols" intellect (even Mark sees this as merely defining language)
and the way distinguishes between social and intellectual
"manipulation" looks a bit "ad hoc" ....yet, the important thing is that
language is seen as the vehicle that DQ used for that value jump.
PIRSIG:
"I had always assumed that this blockage of direct quality perception
was social, but in Mexico a few years ago I talked to a neurologist
who argued that it was physiological. She said that recent
experiments are showing that the right side of the brain, the "artistic"
side, filters all experience before it reaches the left "rational" side of
the brain. This would concur with the MOQ assertion that value
precedes concepts in human understanding. I have read elsewhere
that ...et ceterera.
This is the Mattew P.K. issue: That Quality has its origin in the brain of
a person - of Robert Pirsig's brain preferably - and thus all this
"intellect as ideas creating inorganic matter" logic double bends. In
the MOQ proper the inorganic level is as much perception of value as
any other ...and the first one. The above about the brain halves and
Quality preceding concepts is of course highly valid at the intellectual
level .... our old controversy as you see :-).
In my opinion
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 Nov 27 2003 - 10:46:53 GMT