[MD] The 4th. level's two interpretations. Part 2

[skutvik at online.no]

Mark Squonk

29 Oct. you cited Pirsig from the PT letter:

    RMP: 'But if one studies the early books of the Bible or if one 
    studies the sayings of primitive tribes today, the intellectual 
    level is conspicuously absent. The world is ruled by Gods who 
    follow social and biological patterns and nothing else.' (Letter 
    to Paul Turner)  

> squonk: The bible is composed of linguistic symbols we call language,
> but there is no intellectual level because biblical language
> represents social patterns.

That's right and Pirsig says exactly so, and had his (symbol-
manipulation) definition of the 4th. level been that language started to 
convey intellectual value while it before had conveyed social value 
everything would have been OK (but also platitudinous, we all know 
that) but he says 

    RMP: 'Intellectuality occurs when these customs [social 
    patterns] 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.' 
    (Letter to Paul Turner)  

And this is plainly a definition of language and none are any wiser. Yet, 
in the same letter  he says it's no use speaking about an intellectual 
level (much) before the Greeks (which is SOM).  

> squonk: Note that intellectuality requires two operations:
> 1. the existence of designated signs, and
> 2. for these signs to be independently manipulated.

Sure, language is a pre-requisite for intellect, but language is the 
ultimate social pattern and was used for tens of thousand of years 
without generating any intellectual LEVEL, so it was not language as 
such. 

    RMP: "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. (Letter to Paul Turner)  

> squonk: And as we can see, 'Mind' as a realm of symbols may have
> either one, or both aspects: a. the existence of designated signs, and
> b. independent manipulation. Therefore, 'Mind' is not the same as the
> intellect.

OK, squonk, since we last spoke I have introduced the "intelligence-
intellect fallacy" as the tallest obstacle in understanding the MOQ. It's 
plain that all animals with a brain to speak of can "think" in some 
sense - not by language - but surely as RMP says above:

    " .... 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."

A dog sniffs something and a smell memory pattern is formed in its 
brain and this may be retrieved in some "cache" and manipulated (sent 
through logical gates). Visual memory of course the easiest 
manipulable and my proverbial crow obvious thought hard how to get 
to the food and succeeded.  

NB!
In SOM-land however the "intellectual" term seems to be identified 
with "mind" but as you remember from years ago my dictionary defines 
intellect as the (correct) S/O distinction (the ability to distinguish 
between those two, that is) and in the MOQ the 4th level is the S/O 
distinction. 

Ron: 
> lets take this out to it's end. IF as you say Bo, that the
> intellectual level IS SOM, and SOM IS "mind". Therefore to understand
> your version of the MoQ, we'd have to be out of our minds.
 
> squonk: This is most problematic for Bo's position. However, the 10
> year old ambiguity dissolves when we apply the 'symbol/hyper-symbolic'
> approach.

You saw what I replied earlier today. Ron at times sounds as if he 
understands the SOL - he even explained it to some other - but then 
reveals that he hasn't or won't. He is almost as enigmatic as you once 
were ;-).

Bodvar