Bo, All
> yet, I suspect that you see Q-intellect as "having ideas"
No, no. Q-intellect is not just "having ideas", though I agree with
Popper that making bold conjectures or theories, often without any
possibly knowable direct experience to support them at the time, is a
crucial part of the intellectual experience. But an equally crucial part
is the critical evaluation of these conjectures and theories (SOL being
one of the methods). And if warranted the application of insights
gained from this process to ones future actions or future conjectures. Q
intellect is a process. A reinterative, evolving, process; sometimes
applied to a specific problem, sometimes just for the joy of it.
Let me site just one example of what I consider a "bold conjecture" that
was an ancient and widespread indication of the emergence of the
intellect. Laying on my back gazing at the night sky I turn to you an
say, "I can predict when and where the moon will be sometime in the
future." Now when this was done for the first time, by a single
individual, in societies around the globe, with little if any passed on
knowledge, it was a "bold conjecture" just "having an idea." But with
that single idea, plus criticial evaluation, reinterative observations,
more ideas, more criticial revauation, etc. isolated societies all over
the world developed high accurate and detailed systems for predicting
the movement of vast numbers of heavenly bodies.
Q-intellect.
> there certainly were Q-Intellectual starts at other places than
> Greece, but not finding a foothold have slipped.
But the intellect qualities or intellectural level didn't magically
disappear in the slippage. Nor can we make the claim that it failed to
dominate as proscribed by the MoQ. It may, say in the Mayan culture,
well have dominated the other levels but because it became so static, so
restrictive, so un-dynamic their whole system failed to evolve. The
collapse of Soviet system is a recent telling example of this. It would
be difficult to argue that their system was lacking in intellect, or
that the intellect failed to dominate the society. Indeed the failure
can be traced to a highly selective intellect which overly dominated
society restricting its evolution.
Indeed the cautionary tale of the MoQ is that intellect is fallible and
any idea (including democracy and capitalism) which fails to evolve will
slip. And the slippage can be by under-dominance (too dynamic) or
over-dominance (too static). Kind of like Goldielock's porriage, it must
be just right.
The crux of our different views on this issue I believe is your focus on
"first dominance" as the defining moment of the intellectual level,
while my focus in on "first emergence".
3WD
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 - 16:01:41 BST