[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[MarshaV]

Happy Valentine's Day!

At 04:33 AM 2/14/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha
>
>13 Feb. you spoke::
>
> > I wasn't clear.  I don't think, in general, static patterns of value,
> > conceptual constructs, are exclusively linguistic.  The spovs, not
> > what they are referring to.
>
>Well, it is the "Quality/MOQ" issue that we have been at for
>months and as said to Andrê: Why this pompous "concept" term, it
>is and remains language.  And that of a reality that language refers
>to is one of SOM's countless seedlings.

Western languages do have a tendency to mirror a 
SOM.  BUT, there's more to life than 
language.   Do you think in nice, neat, 
encyclopedic paragraphs?   It would be sad if you 
did, but I doubt that you do.



> > In spovs there are other mental things available, images for example.
>
>Sure there are, when we sleep and dream we see fantastic
>scenes, but so do animals and here is the very point. At the levels
>below intellect these images aren't "mental". This is too obvious to
>be mentioned regarding animals, but at the social (human) level
>people regarded dreams as magical experience, visitation from
>gods - evil or good - nothing about this being mental or JUST
>dreams.

I'm not talking about dreams. Static patterns of 
value are much more than words.  Think about 
something, zebras for instance.   What comes to 
mind?   If all you can experience are words and 
sentences, you have my sympathy.  Can you conjure 
up the memory of the smell of an orange?  The 
memory of its color, shape, surface texture, 
'orange', its taste, etc.?  Can you remember 
making fresh orange juice?  Can you see the pulp 
floating in the glass?  Memory is more than 
words.  Does the memory of orange blossoms come 
to mind?  Orange groves?  Do you know you cannot 
wear anything the color orange?   Does your body 
respond?  Does your mouth water?  I could write 
for weeks on what comprises an orange pattern and 
its overlapping relationships.

Or do you get only something like:

An orange—specifically, the sweet orange—is the 
citrus Citrus sinensis (syn. Citrus aurantium L. 
var. dulcis L., or Citrus aurantium Risso) and 
its fruit. The orange is a hybrid of ancient 
cultivated origin, possibly between pomelo 
(Citrus maxima) and tangerine (Citrus 
reticulata). It is a small flowering tree growing 
to about 10 m tall with evergreen leaves, which 
are arranged alternately, of ovate shape with 
crenulate margins and 4–10 cm long. The orange 
fruit is a hesperidium, a type of berry.


> > But I'm still uncertain about what the Intellectual Level represents.
> > I'm trying to imagine if you removed all linguistic associations from
> > the fourth level, would there be any patterns left.
>
>Intellect does nor represent anything, it IS the (value of)
>subject/object distinction, the one that (among a thousand things)
>regards language to be subjective and what it refers to as
>objective

A intellectual static pattern of value does not 
represent anything?   It doesn't refer to anything???

Maybe you can give me an example of an 
intellectual-spov.  I'm speaking conventionally, 
of course?    Maybe this type of explanation 
might help me understand your complaint.

Zebra is a static pattern of value.  What does it 
refer to?  To which level does it belong?



> > I'm not a mathematician, an accomplished musician or a logician to be
> > able to answer that from their point-of-view.  I would like to hear of
> > their experience/opinion of mathematical thought and musical thought.
> > My husband could read music and interpret it musically in his mind.
> > That seems to be manipulating abstract symbols that does not involve
> > language.  I'm not sure, and I'm still not understand your
> > explanation.
>
>To read music is not different from ordinary reading and people
>before the 4th. level mastered writing and reading  so
>"manipulating symbols" isn't intellect. Intellect - the level - is the (in
>this case) "symbol/what it symbolizes" (abstract/concrete)
>distinction. What you struggle with is INTELLIGENCE.

I didn't mean that he read the notes and just 
chose the right fret, string and finger.  I could 
do that much.  I meant, without guitar, he could 
read music and hear it in his head.  And much 
more, but I don't think I explain it 
properly.  But maybe you're correct?  It 
certainly would not be intellectual manipulation 
of abstract symbols if you were stuck thinking 
that the Intellectual level contained only 
subject/object thinking.  But that is still an 
open question...  Any musicians in the house???



> > It sounds like you're saying that patterns of the Intellectual kind
> > include the understanding that they are purely representative.
>
>Close but not quite. Not in the sense that the other levels are "real"
>and intellect "represents" them, this is the fallacy that Pirsig
>commits at the beginning of the "symbol manipulation" definition:
>
>     Intellectuality occurs when these customs as well as
>     biological and inorganic patterns are designated with a sign
>     that stands for them and these signs are manipulated
>     independently of the patterns they stand for. "Intellect" can
>     then be defined very loosely as the level of independently
>     manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and mathematics can
>     be described as the rules of this sign manipulation.
>
>Intellect is the value of the "real/representative" distinction.

I do not understand this sentence.  I see all 
patterns having the same nature, but pointing to 
referents of varying evolutionary standing, and 
because of that, falling into the different 
levels.  The pattern E = mc2 and its mathematical 
meaning would fall into the Intellectual level.  Yes?  No?

Thoughts?  Bo?  Anybody?


Marsha





Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.