Oisin and Group
You said after I had said:
> > But ....when some Greek thinkers started to doubt the truth
> > (objectivity) of the myths the Q-Intellect was born. THAT is the
> > Intellectual level, not the ability to think or literacy or
> > intelligence.
> You've cut right to the point of something that is not entirely clear
> to me, and I apologise if this has already been resolved in this
> forum:
Thanks for noticing what I say. Nothing seems to become (fully)
resolved re. Pirsig's ideas, so no need for apology :-)
> Is SOM equivalent to the Intellectual level,
> or is SOM the original 'independence movement' for the liberation of
> Intellect from Society?
As I see it that's the only consistent view, however, your
"...original "independence movement" for the liberation of Intellect
from Society" ....wasn't bad. Anyway, what Intellect can't be is is
that of "thinking" (in a conceptual way) in other words: Language
..or worse: "consciousness".
> In other words, is SOM only one subset of Intellect, or is SOM
> synonomous with Intellect?
> If it is synonomous with Intellect, then that would appear to mean
> that MoQ is an offspring of SOM. It is my understanding that MoQ is a
> radical departure from SOM, not a subset of it, and that MoQ is yet
> part of Intellect.
A very good analysis. As said I tend to go for the "strong
interpretation" i.e. that SOM is the intellectual level, and yes, that
makes the MoQ an offspring of the SOM, a 5th level ...of itself!
Quite a proposition, but IMO an all-encompassing systems is
itself. This may be a logical loop but to say that the MoQ is an
intellectual pattern makes it a part of a lesser part of itself which is
impossible.
It's no degradation to be an "offspring", all value levels are, yet a
radical departure.
> This means that there are at least two static patterns of Intellect. If
> there are two, is there a logical reason why there cannot be more? Is
> there a reason why - if there are other static patterns of Intellect -
> that these cannot be coeval with, and exist in a mostly symbiotic
> relationship with certain Social patterns? Even a > caveman's
> "explanation" of origin and destination
> IMHO is _not_ simply a function of social cohesion, but an attempt
> to answer the "whyness" of the universe.
No sarcasm, but if so where does the intellectual pattern start? An
animal certainly makes some mapping of its world, and the higher
primates even have some explanation why things happen. A chimp
in a lab learns that acting in so and so way makes the goodies
come its way (social behavior) ...not in a cosmological sense
though :-).
> For example, in the Boyne Valley of Ireland, the Newgrange
> passage-tomb
> is perfectly aligned so that every winter solstice for the past 3,500
> years, the dawning sun shines down a long corridor to illuminate the
> back chamber wall. This wall, like many of the satellite stones that
> encircle the so-called tomb, is covered with strange geometric shapes:
> zigzags, waves, circles, lozenges and shapes that suggest the sun,
> moon and stars in both calendrical and fantastic formats, of whose
> significance we can only guess.
> Absolutely, I believe that these structures and symbols were of
> paramount
> social importance to organise it's agricultural society (e.g. as a
> calendar) and speak of a tremendous social cohesion - the vast
> organisational, engineering feats and use of manpower.
> But to suggest that these achievements were only for the
> organisation of
> society is, I think, to do a grave injustice to the culture that
> produced it. This seems to suggest that the only purpose of any notion
> of transcendence, or cosmic understanding offered by any religion, is
> almost as some sort of trick or subterfuge to control people's
> biological patterns only.
> If people collaborate for sustenance and protection, is it not also
> true
> that the search for universally applicable meaning in an uncertain
> world, can also be a powerful motivating force for solidarity?
> (Destructive cults can use this to get their hooks into people too -
> but just because something has an Intellectual component, doesn't mean
> that it is always of high Quality).
Interesting. We may be a little at odds here though. The calendar
function was important, but the social value lies in the common
myth of origin and purpose. I think I have heard about the
Newgrange - at least the Stonehenge and other cult sites - and I
don't mean that those, in their time was made as a trick to fool
people. No, my point is rather that in those days there were no
"intellectual" who said: "Are these lights in the sky Gods or just
regular matter?". The mind/matter (S/O) distinction hadn't been
invented yet: Everything was magical! The S/O "sceptical"
approach did not appear until the early Greek philosophers ...and is
the the Intellectual level proper in my opinion.
> Why _must_ we regard Religion as necessarily excluding an
> Intellectual component? Even if that is how one chooses to define it, the
> definition would seem to contradict the experience of many.
We only exclude intellectual components in the above S/O view of
Intelect. Clearly a lot of calculation and intelligence was included.
> Also, if religion - an organised response to the world - must
> always be
> of a lower quality level than intellect; is visual art - as an often
> disorganised response to the world - of an even lower quality? I know
> the answer is no, that art can be pre-intellectual; can't there be a
> preintellectual component in religion too?
The clerical (church) components are social patterns while religious
mysticism is dynamic quality (LILA p.381) ....which may solidify
into new dogma or work of art. However, I doubt that the ancient
had any such art/religion distinction, the cave paintings weren't art
in our sense, but this hardly controversial.
Honestly. I don't like the "pre-intellectual" term (it's from ZAMM not
from the MoQ proper) and gives the impression of the intellectual
level as "thinking".
> (A working definition of Intellect I use is:
> "The organised search for self-consistent understanding, that
> transcends all local mythos' and linguistics." Am I wrong in any way?)
Transcending myths YES! Transcending linguistics I'm not sure I
understand. Please elaborate.Thanks for the most relevant
comments.
Bo
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 - 16:01:33 BST