[MD] Food for Thought

[ian glendinning]

Case, the artificiality of tinkering with definitions .... I agree with you.

I already accept the MoQ as a great model, I'm realy tinkering with my
understanding and usage - ready for those dinner parties ;-). It's the
dialogue that matters, the definitions are ultimately for dummies.

I like your concept of "geometric" progression. The levels may not
have clear objective dividing lines, distinctions, definitions,
whatever, but some leaps are much more significant than simple
"arithmetic" ones .... sounds like Kuhnian paradigms.

Regards
Ian

On 1/1/07, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> [Ian]
> That's a recurring debate here, that one definition of intellect is
> the ability to manipulate symbols. But I don't think it's good enough.
> Once we move above level 2 (Life) to level 3/4 (Reflexive
> consciousness, and symbol manipulation etc.) we have both social and
> intellectual manipulation, and it's really culture that decides which
> kind of manipulation is which. (As Arlo has clarified)
>
> [Case]
> I think Arlo has done an outstanding job of tying up much of what is at
> stake in the intellectual level. I would only say that the advent of written
> language created a geometric progression in the expansion of knowledge. So
> much so that in the present it is impossible to say what is social and what
> is intellectual. The two are confounded to such a degree that separating
> them can only be done by way of definition. We can say that Math is purely
> intellectual while sitting around the diner table is social. But simply
> labeling levels and tinkering with their definition seems wholly artificial
> to me.
>
> 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/
>