[MD] The education of Peter Corteen

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Steve.

On 5 Dec. you wrote:

> Steve:
> I don't think the MOQ wants to do away with a distinction between 
> symbols and what they symbolize.

Do away with (a) distinction ?! This formulation puzzled me, still 
does. The said distinction is the highest quality level (in my 
opinion that is). 

> I think symbols are social or intellectual patterns that may represent
> social, biological, inorganic, and intellectual patterns (though I
> don't think Pirsig explicitly locates symbols in the hierarchy). 

What symbols are "below" intellect is a futile question, at the 
social level there exists no S/O distinction and consequently no 
symbols. The wine and bread of the Catholic communion is 
supposed to be blood and flesh, but because the Catholics live in 
the Western intellectual culture this isn't taken seriously. What 
the current situation is among Catholics I don't know? In the 
intellectualized Lutheran Church it is regarded as  symbols?

When the social level was top notch this conundrum wasn't 
known. The totem pole was the totem, language was not 
concepts that stood for something else, but a  powerful means to 
summon the forces, as it is still is in prayers Offerings were not 
symbolic acts, but the real thing (ref, the said "communion") and 
so on and on. Only with intellects subject/object distinction did the 
symbol/reality term occur ... along with a host of other dualisms.  

> Manipulations of such symbols are concepts and rationales which are 
> intellectual patterns.

I don't quite understand this, Steve. Anyway, symbol 
manipulation is INTELLECT'S definition of language, but there 
are other forms of symbol manipulation; Calculation for instance 
but the point is that people of old (social age) both spoke and 
calculated, but did not regard it as symbol manipulation, the 
numbers and certain geometric figures/relationships were sacred.

> The collection of all such patterns is the intellectual level itself. 

As said, in an MOQ retrospect social age people collected and 
manipulated what in intellectual retrospect is symbols. To be very 
wise-guyish: Even at the biological level (in an intellectual 
retrospect) there is symbol manipulation. The act of "translating" 
various frequencies of light into colors - into vision! - is the 
greatest feat of all. 

> Which type of pattern of value do you see symbols as?

As said the term "symbol" occurred only with the intellectual 
level,  in the social level's heyday no such term - and distinction - 
was known. In intellect's heyday (while SOM) ) social values had 
a hard time because intellect scoffs at symbols - they are 
nonexistent, subjective,  But with the advent of the MOQ things 
changes. It "scoffs" at intellect and says that it is a static level 
dependent on the social level. 

Enough!

Bo