Bo,
There's a lot of agreement
> First of all, my grand sweep which sees the rising change curve as
> Intellect's evolution, is limited to the western and /western-like
> democracies*,
Agree
> the greater part of the world is still social-level
> focussed.**
> **) That is not to say that Intellect hasn't emerged, but it does not
> dominate.
Agree
> *) The Far East is a special case where (according to LILA)
> Intellect and Society has found a "modus vivendi".
Interesting... is there a precise point in Lila bout it?
> Within this
[western]
> sphere INTELLECT IS STILL WORKING
> ON IT (bringing the social patterns under control), but these
> intellect-influenced social structures (Family of liven-ins,
> gay/lesbian couples, single mothers. Church of liberals. Law of
> lenience ..etc.) are for gratifying intellectual value of the individual,
> not for social value of the community.
Agree
> You say that the evolution of the social level has not
> yet completely halted, but if we stay within the western sphere I
> think it is harnessed by Intellect and that it is Intellect which is "out
> of control", naturally, what is there to check the topmost level? To
> see the workings we may go down a step and look to Society's
> relationship with Biology.
Well, the gratification of the intellectual value of the individual is real IF
the individual is able to claim its right to be recognized as individual. It is
partly true within the western sphere, but of course, the social patterns, even
here, are blind to the individual, so we can't relax about it. Biologically, we
have to train our body to preserve it from death; socially, they teach us to
keep at bay our instincts, in order to preserve family and nations; I'd say that
even intellectually, we should find a good *intellectual training*, to preserve
our individual intellect from the underlying -huge- forces.... Suggestions?
But I was thinking also about the phenomenon of economic globalization and
building of supranational political structures (I guess that the European Union
is, in the end, the political attempt to surf on the waves of the global
market). And about the migrations of entire peoples. From this viewpoint,
there's not really a closed *sphere*. As you agree that intellect is not still
dominating out of the western world , here is the explanation of so many
conflicts. As long as we consider the talebans merely a pack of mad fanatics, we
hardly will get a reason for all that. Put it in the social/intellectual
struggle, and everything is more clear.
Anyway, it's true that the intellect is somehow "out of control"; just it seems
to me that it really doesn't know what to do with all the freedom it has gained.
Maybe it's a natural process, like the Jonathan's onion flavor. But as I guess
we should be a little more intelligent than the onion flavor, we probably should
be careful in this *urge* to expand the global market toward those countries
where intellect/individual is not dominating at all. All we get is a social
struggle, AKA war.
> Biological value of proliferation reigned for aeons in cycles of life
> and death. Its evolution brought about ever more complex species,
> and when the primates appeared social-like patterns started to
> show; co-operation for mutual protection. At this point they were for
> the mere benefit of life (all levels starts in the service of its parent),
> but as the primates evolved into humans their social pattern grew
> to a complexity that went out on a purpose of its own and started
> to to "control" biological life. This happened by creating realities
> that transcended the individual: Sanctums, taboos, mythologies,
> commandments from God ..etc.*
>
> *) As the MoQ has done away with the subject-object metaphysics
> its no use thinking in the SOM way of these myths and gods
> existing only in the minds. It was a step up on the betterness
> ladder.
>
> My point is that after coming under Society's control the biological
> pattern (homo sapiens) that carried social value could not evolve
> further, but started to domesticate (other) animals and breed them
> to fit the needs of society. Likewise, the social pattern (democracy)
> that carried intellectual value can't evolve, except forcing other
> lesser social institutions (family, judicial system, church ..etc.) to
> toe its own line ... which can be compared to breeding animals for
> its own purpose in the example above.
>
Family as an *inferior* social pattern, domesticated by the *king of social
patterns* (democracy). Great! Agree. So, even the market should be
domesticated by democracy, I guess...... The problem is that the *beast* is
invading the other *social jungles* where no one is able to keep it at bay!
> > About the "the rate of change curve" you mention, other rapid growths
> > happened in the past. One began at the time of the Greeks and lasted
> > about 800 years, followed by the relative stasis of the Middle Ages.
> > Then a new growth begun with the Reinassance, and we are still in this
> > phase.
>
> Of course there was a great upheaval at the time you mention
> followed by the stasis of the Middle Ages. Pirsig interpreted it as
> the emergence of the subject-object metaphysics (ZAMM) yet a
> technological/procedural change curve would not register this. If
> Homer returned from 900 BC(?) to 100 (BC) may have lamented the
> decline of the "old gods" but he would not have had any trouble
> orienting himself (except being blind!), the Greek did not introduce
> any new technology. The Romans did to an extent, but even far
> into that era a returned Homer would have been fully at home. The
> tools of artisans and peasants were the same as he knew. Yes, I
> risk the assertion that that was the fact far into the second
> millennium and that it was only the Enlightenment Age and the
> Industrial Revolution that made the curve rise.
If you consider only technology it's completely true. But if you consider, for
example, philosophy, you get a different curve. I guess Homer should find just a
little strange Aristotle, who in turn could find reasonable Immanuel Kant (what
a match!). What I mean is that the SOM, that is socially focused, has been able
to produce an incredible technologic development: firstly as servant of society
in the struggle to keep at bay the biologic needs; then as executioner of
society thanks to Information Technology. Starting exactly from Gutenberg:
without the press, no Enlightenment could happen.
Actually the curve of technology is the curve of society. Compare them! Now I'm
longing for the great upheaval of the *curve of philosophy*. And hopefully also
for the *curve of art*. In the past, too many people were ruled out from any
possibility to give a contribute on these fields. Few minds were allowed to an
intellectual activity, and almost all the *troops* have been used by SOM for its
(good) purposes. Now we have abundance of troops (actually tons of jobless
people, and much more free time than ever, and even an increased life length),
but the most don't know, as said, what to do.
Or, maybe, there are no new curves to climb. Could be, but, tell me, what, after
technology? A world of people spending tons of hours watching TV, having a BUD?
Or chatting on the NET? And a small army of scientists working to prolong that
life?
> And after learning about the MoQ I immediately identified the curve
> with a development caused by the SOM and eventually - as my
> SOLAQI idea struck - as the Intellectual "evolution" in the same
> way that biology and society had had their.
Yes, I think that the *invasion* of the Earth performed by the first plants, has
been *relatively* quick. Then biology has changed its look many times, before
the first appearance of society. As you know, I consider the SOM a sort of
dinosaur.
> > In both cases, IMO it's simply the intellectual level (that is still a
> > baby) at work.
>
> "Baby" definitely compared to the rest of the static sequence. If a
> curve were drawn it would look somewhat the same as the change
> one: The formation of matter 20 (?) billions years ago, the first multi-
> cellular organisms (on earth that is) 1.5 bya, the humanoids and
> societies 4-5 millions years ago and the intellect 3-4(?) thousand
> years ago. Wish I was able to draw this graph (can't anyone do it
> on a computer?) It would not surprise me if the emergence of a 5th
> level were "predicted" to around our time.
But you agree that intellect is not still dominating the whole world. And the
beginning of dominance in the west is (according to Pirsig) less than 100 years
ago. Moreover, as every level is blind to the upper levels, how can we "see" a
possible 5th level? More likely, I'd say that it's time to extinguish the SOM
dinosaur. The reptiles curve is over.
Bye
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:21 BST