[MD] Re Proposed solution to SOL/Intellectual level

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Mary

Jan. 17 u wrote to Andre  

Andre before:,

> > Pirsig's definition [of the Intellectual Level] in the letter to Paul
> > Turner. ...manipulation of symbols (and words are not symbols!!) That is
> > the intellectual level proper. Pure symbol manipulation without social
> > pattern words. 

Words as symbols or not depends on the level in question. From the 
social level's internal view language is not symbolic, while intellect treat 
language as "manipulation of symbols". What pure symbols are ????? 

Mary: 
> I am hung up now on trying to understand what Pirsig means by "Symbol
> Manipulation".  I've stumbled across some gems I think.  These seem all of
> a piece if you use the World War I context as a starting point.  

> The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
> words. - Philip K. Dick (1928-1982) -----
> http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Symbol+manipulation+and+boomerang+spin.(C
> ALL IN G+OUT+THE+SYMBOL+RULERS)-a0138483284 

Please Mary, note that the MOQ is just 20 years "old" and totally 
ignored except in this small circle where most are solidly SOM (on Q-
intellect)  thus it's no use searching the internet for support.     

Back to the definition in the PT letter (it occurs in "Lila's Child" too)

    ".... it seems to me the greatest meaning can be given to the 
    intellectual level if it is confined to the skilled manipulation of 
    abstract symbols that have no corresponding particular 
    experience and which behave according to rules of their own.  

It's plain that this is an INTELLECTUAL definition of language, not a 
Quality definition of intellect and if the 4th level is made into a 
language level the MOQ is done for, there have been languages 
around  since Cro Magnons and if they were "intellectuals" ... goodbye 
MOQ. Nor is intellect a "thinking level", the said Cro Magnons had 
many ideas about existence.  

Shortly, this Pirsig definition is invalid, the only viable 4th. level is the 
Subject/Object one. For instance regarding language, "intellectual 
value occurred when humankind realized that words are symbols 
about - but totally removed from - objective reality" . Of course this was 
not how the level emerged - that emergence is described in ZAMM - 
but once the S/O "log splitter" was established also language was split 
into symbols/what's symbolized.. 

As said language has been around for umpteen millennias, but to the  
social people it was not symbolic rather a powerful means to get in 
touch with the gods/forces that run their existence. They had rituals 
that - among many things - involved songs and chanting  that would be 
heard by the said forces. A remnant of which is latter-day "social 
reality" religions where prayers are directed to God. Nothing about 
these words being "symbols that stand for anything", but a way to 
approach God with praise or appeals.

> Finally, let's keep in mind the following: Data is not information,
> information is not knowledge, knowledge is not understanding,
> understanding is not wisdom, and finally wisdom is not enlightenment.

I'll try to remember that, I don't know if it is "wisdom" or ...? But it 
sounds impressive.

Bodvar