From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Thu Nov 27 2003 - 14:46:28 GMT
Bo:
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.
Mark 27-11-03: Hello Bo, i have never said that symbol manipulation defines
language. What i have said, is that language involves the manipulation of
symbols. Therefore, language is an intellectual process above a certain abstract
nature. The threshold of abstraction for me includes thinking about God(s),
because God(s) are static symbolic representations of DQ. If God(s) behave
socially, then oral/writen stories about their social nature still elicits a high
degree of abstract symbolic nature.
Many animals use language but they don't tell invented stories to each other.
If they did, i feel sure we would find that aspect of their behaviour to be
eliciting an intellectual status.
I really wish you would put a stop to ignoring other peoples validly held
views, even if you do not agree with them!
All the best,
Mark
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 - 14:48:00 GMT