[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[ian glendinning]

Sorry, for Matt (Gene, Arlo et al)

The point of that point is I agree with Matt (using the word language
as he did), because it's just his word for (symbolic) communication
between brains. It's just a word.

Yes, even Matt's e-mails could be longer if he couldn't used such short-hand :-)

Ian

On 6/2/06, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
> Gene, (Matt, Arlo, et al)
>
> But now you're really just debating the meaning of the word "language".
> I tend to use the word "meme" as you may have noticed - means of
> communication through culture. The particular words are just
> approximate short hand (so we can pragmatically write e-mails).
>
> Ian
>
> Ian
> On 6/2/06, Gene M <boredandunstable at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Matt wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Gene, I think, points out fairly that the intellectual level may still be
> > > struggling to existence.  And this strikes me as parallel (for good
> > > historical reasons) to the idea that metaphysics, while as yet
> > > unsuccessful
> > > in cutting past appearances to reality, may someday yet still do it.  Who
> > > knows, maybe it will.  With metaphysics, we can't even imagine what it
> > > would
> > > be like to know if we were successful.  We just have no idea what the
> > > criteria would look like.  With the intellectual, Pirsig has pointed out
> > > to
> > > us that a higher level will be radically different from the lower (so as
> > > to
> > > fit in that word "discrete") and that those "things" existing at the lower
> > > levels will be ignorant of the higher levels.  We can understand what this
> > > means for atoms being ignorant of the cells they make up, cells ignorant
> > > of
> > > the mammals they make up, and human bodies being ignorant of the societies
> > > they make up (this one's a little harder to imagine, but I'm thinking of a
> > > difference between our physical bodies and the language that our bodies
> > > employ).  But I'm not sure what the difference is supposed to be between
> > > two
> > > different types of linguistic performance where some people in the world
> > > are
> > > ignorant of it and we (who are supposedly intellectual) aren't.
> > >
> >
> > Society is not completely dependant on language for transmission of
> > information actually. Things like Celebrity and Money play a huge role in
> > Society as a whole. I think of Language as more a bridge between
> > Intellectual and Social levels. It allows them to interact in a very close
> > way, which probably causes some of the confusion between them. However it
> > seems clear that Social patterns aren't Dependent on language, at this point
> > I think a society could be built that wouldn't even require it. It'd be an
> > absolutely despicable society for the individuals involved in it, and would
> > result in an end to DQ, but it might be possible.
> > In a similar vein, I don't think Intellectual Patterns are Language
> > dependent either. I have plenty of good ideas, but then have difficulty
> > expressing them using words. Words are very imprecise, which causes a lot of
> > grief when working on extremely abstract ideas. If Intellectual Quality is
> > still in the process of extricating itself from Social Quality, then I think
> > language is there to help, but eventually the Intellectual Patterns will
> > shed it for something more useful.
> >
> > -Gene
> > moq_discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >
>