[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[Ham Priday]

Bo --


[Ham, previously]:

> As you must know, I take exception to your view that concepts
> (i.e., intellectual apprehensions) are dependent on language.

[Bo]:
> My view that?  My view is that intellect (the level) has made
> language an abstract wordplay that (may) reflect a concrete reality
> out there. This is merely ONE of intellect's countless S/O splits.

How does intellect (the level) differ from intellect (the Knower)?
Do you believe there is an intellect in the absence of the Knower?
In othr words, do you believe Intellect is a reservoir (level) of 
intelligence that exists apart from human consciousness?

[Ham]:
> [Pre-lingual man] must have learned that placing a fish over a fire
> changed its texture so as to make it more edible.  These are simple
> concepts, no doubt, but understanding and applying them did not
> require the use of language.
>
> Nor did the cave paintings and engravings depicting animals and
> human figures rendered by Palaeolithic man as early as 10,000 BC.

[Bo]:
> I agree, but when it comes to food preparation by fire I believe we
> are in the language era. However animals don't need language to
> think. A crow outside my window has learned how to hoist food
> balls (intended for the smaller ones) by its beak and put the foot on
> the string and thus get to it. It just uses its intelligence and that is
> very much pre-lingual. It somehow visualizes things and uses
> visual logic, "if I do this so will happen".

Yes, and associating actions with events is a rudimentary form of intellect.

[Bo quoting Pirsig]:
>    "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."
>
> This should (regarding language) have been...
> "Intellect" can be defined as the realization that language is a
> subjective representations of an objective reality."

[Ham]:
> With respect to both you and Pirsig, these are woefully inadequate
> definitions of "intellect".  "Manipulable signs" are only the symbols
> of concepts, like plus and minus marks, words or musical notations.
> They may represent concepts, or suggest intellectual activity, but
> they do not define the intellectual faculty itself.  Moreover, such
> symbols are but meaningless scratchings to observers who lack the
> intellect to interpret them.

[Bo]:
> Agree, Pirsig's definition is of language and language is something
> from the social level.

[Ham's comment, as originally posted]:
> I also take issue with your assertion: "Intellect can be defined as
> the realization that language is a subjective representation."
> Intellect is the ability to make sense of knowledge.
> The "realization" is not that language represents a sensible
> concept; it is the subjective (proprietary) awareness of the concept.
> You consistently slight the "power of knowing" in your analysis of
> intellect, as if to suggest that the Knower doesn't exist.

[Bo]:
> Back to my crow, I'm sure it makes very much sense of knowledge
> (even if non-lingual) I'm afraid you confuse intelligence and
> intellect, an all too common fallacy.

Intelligence (sensible inferences from experiential knowledge) is the 
PRODUCT of intellect.
Reflecting (thinking, conceptualizing) on what one learns from experience 
produces intelligence.  This mental process is what we call intellection. 
The power to form conclusions from knowledge (empirical facts and sensible 
values) is the capacity of the human intellect.  I do not see this capacity 
exhibited by rocks, plants, or any other species of animal.

> My definition of intellect (in case of language) is "the fundamental
> split between the concept and the reality conceptualized".

Where is the "split"?  What do you see as the difference between a concept 
and the conceptualized reality?

> it is the subjective (proprietary) awareness of the concept. You
> consistently slight the "power of knowing" in your analysis of
> intellect, as if to suggest that the Knower doesn't exist.

But there is no concept independent of the Knower.  Do you believe there are 
concepts floating around waiting to be "conceptualized?  Is that your idea 
of Intellect?

> You keep confusing intellect and intelligence, and by Jove you are
> not the only one. "Aware of" what exactly is that, my crow is surely
> aware of the food in its non-lingual way. And -after the coming of
> language knowing the name isn't the intellectual LEVEL.

Subjective (psychic) awareness is the only apprehensive capability we have. 
Without it there can be no experience, knowledge, intelligence, 
comprehension, or intellect.  This is the most self-evident truth 
conceivable, whether language is involved or not.  Yet, you want me to deny 
it!

I stand by my previous statement:
> Intellect is not some extra-human realm of knowledge.  It's the
> realization of the INDIVIDUAL SELF.  To deny the reality of
> the subject is a perversion of experiential reality and, in my opinion,
> does a disservice to epistemology and philosophical understanding.

[Bo]:
> Because the human organism became the carrier of the social
> value, the intellectual level necessarily had to be "human". But on
> another planet the carrier may be some "alien" organism, and this
> alien having reached the 4th, level (but NOT the Quality Meta-
> level) will be as sure as you are that it is "his" SELF which is the
> hub of the universe.

I don't know what "carrier of the social value" means, since all values are 
sensed by individuals.
Apparently I haven't yet reached the 4th level, inasmuch as I perceive 
myself as the "hub of the universe."  What is the hub of your universe?

> Ham, come to your senses, The social level didn't know intellect's
> "an abstract, symbolic representation versus the concrete, real
> thing"  The cave paintings weren't decorative depictions of
> animals, but magical means of bringing them to their pit-falls, or
> some taboo in some or other way. The same reality is reflected in
> latter day "social" phenomena, for instance religion where there's a
> ban on pictures. Particularly in Islam and Jewdom which is the
> most "social" such, the Intellect-influenced Christendom. not so.
> And language in prayer isn't just some less-than-real concepts,
> but supposed to be a magical means of getting in touch with the
> forces that govern existence. FYI. the Catholics still regard the
> sacramental bread and wine to be the real articles, while the more
> intellectual Lutheranism says they are just symbols..

Again, I don't see the point you're trying to make by injecting historical 
taboos and religion into the rendering of abstract (representative) symbols. 
Whatever the purpose or motive of art, prayer, or religious ritual, it is 
performed by individuals who value such expressions.  These practices 
represent something meaningful, whether it's the custom of the tribe or the 
intrinsic value of the individual who engages in them.

[Ham]:
> Intellect is what makes experience comprehensible to the subject so
> that concepts can be represented symbolically.

[Bo]:
> Do I spot a small agreement?

If you accept the subject as the cognizant agent of value, then it would 
logically follow that you accept "intellect" as the power of proprietary 
cognizance.  But your definition of intellect as "the fundamental split 
between the concept and the reality conceptualized" seems to negate this 
epistemology.  So, evidently your peculiar notion of intellect stands in the 
way of agreement.

You've accused me of confusing intelligence and intellect, whereas the 
former is the product of the latter.  I suggest that you have confused 
intellect with a primary source -- like MoQ's Quality or
Morality or Michael's Divinity, for example -- and this is why we're at 
odds.  Perhaps if I could comprehend Pirsig's Static and Dynamic euphemism, 
you ontology would make sense to me.  As it is, I still can't fathom your 
argument.

But thanks for trying, Bo.

--Ham