[MD] DMB and Rorty

[skutvik at online.no]

Mary, DMB, All.

11 Apr.:

[DMB] before
> > I might pick some nits with Sam, but this
> > is basically a good explanation of the form-content conflation I've
> > accused you of several times. Like I said, talking about the
> > non-verbal does not make it verbal just because you're talking about
> > it. That would be like saying that talking about animals means that
> > animals are just talk or like saying that we could only se
> > >  e the moon landing on TV so the moon landing was really just a TV
> > show.

Mary:
> Thinking about the MoQ does not make it of the Intellectual Level  ..<snip>, 

Right, the ingrained misunderstandings about the 4th. level is based 
on the misunderstanding that the term "intellect"means any turning of 
"mental wheels" ( the intelligence=intellect fallacy) while it means 
turning in the S/O "gear".  

> and talking about it in our subject/object language does not make it
> equivalent to subjective-objectivity. 

Right again: Linguist treatment/presentation of the MOQ does not 
automatically make it an intellectual pattern. Language were not S/O 
while a social pattern, but when intellect brought the social level under 
its control language became abstract symbols that "stood for" 
something concrete out there. Thus Pirsig's "symbol manipulation" 
definition of intellect kind of affirms the SOL, but is from wrong 
premises. Language is not S/O by nature, IT'S INTELLECT THAT 
HAS MADE IT SO!.       

Bodvar