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

[mark_maxwell at talktalk.net]

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

Bo now:
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)

Bo now: And this is plainly a definition of language and none are any wiser.

Squonk: Hi Bo, Thank you.
That which you refer to as, ‘a definition of language’ is, IMHO, confused:
The omitted key is ‘Independently manipulated’.
That is to say, ‘Independent manipulation [of symbols]’.
This is crucial in order to differentiate between the Symbolic and the Hyper-symbolic: the symbolic is a definition of [social] language, while the independent manipulation of symbols is the intellectual level.

Bo:
Yet, in the same letter he says it's no use speaking about an intellectual level (much) before the Greeks.

Squonk: Culture: There is no intellectual culture to speak of. The intellectual level exists, and is recognised by RMP, but culture is not dominated by it.
　
Squonk prev: Note that intellectuality requires two operations:
1. the existence of designated signs, and
2. for these signs to be independently manipulated.

Bo:
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.

Squonk:
Let’s be logical:
1. Language is symbolic.
2. Language is the ultimate social pattern.
3. Language as the ultimate social pattern is not the intellectual level.
I agree. Now let us add, ‘independent manipulation’:
4. Linguistic symbols which are independently manipulated are intellectuality.
And there you go - no problems.

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 prev: 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.

Squonk: And you have just moved toward this position above Bo. It is coherent.

Bo:
OK, squonk, since we last spoke I have introduced the "intelligence - intellect fallacy" as the tallest obstacle in understanding the MOQ.

Squonk: Thank you. I am not aware of this. My life journey has, one might say, been ‘living DQ’ since we last spoke, rather than ‘talking about DQ’.

Bo:
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."

Squonk: I think RMP is specifically referring to Humans here. That is to say, ipov, bpov [and spov] are designated a sign.
The key step is the next one - intellectuality.
Intellectuality ‘independently manipulates’ these patterns.

Bo:
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).

Squonk: A repertoire of smell correlations primarily serves biological functions IMHO.

Bo:
Visual memory of course the easiest manipulable and my proverbial crow obvious thought hard how to get to the food and succeeded.

Squonk: A repertoire of visual correlations may include, in addition to biological functions, social functions such as, ‘That pattern is the alpha male I am subordinate to’ IMHO.
Olfactory and Visual correlations may exist as autonomic responses - they are not manipulated.

Bo:
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 S/O distinction (the ability to distinguish between those two, that is) and in the MOQ the 4th level is the S/O distinction.

Squonk: Please explicate the "intelligence - intellect fallacy" Bo?
The Dog examples are not examples of manipulation, they are examples of correlations.

Bo:
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 prev: This is most problematic for Bo's position.
However, the 10 year old ambiguity dissolves when we apply the 'symbol/hyper-symbolic' approach.

Bo:
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

Squonk: You may be the arbiter of SOL understanding Bo.
I would hope that we can all be such arbiters.

All the best,
squonk