Dear Bo,
You wrote 8/3 10:54 +0100:
'I don't know if the "principle" is different from what the VALUE is?'
Let's first make clear what 'the principle of a level' is in this context.
Marco introduced the expression 10/2 14:11 +0100 as 'basic moral principle'
and explained 17/2 15:21 +0100 'writing these formulations, I tried to
imagine *who* could have said such statements for the very first time... '
The 'principle of the intellectual level' is NOT 'what the Q-Intellect is
all about', but the FIRST intellectual value 'safeguarded' (latched) by this
new type of static patterns of values.
The fact that the value of distinguishing objective from subjective is a
dominant value now and at the core of most intellectual patterns of values,
doesn't make it into the principle of the intellectual level.
I think that explaining/understanding/reflecting itself was the first value
latched.
As Scott's 7/3 20:29 -1000 quotes from Owen Barfield suggest (primitive
people 'participating' in phenomena) the first humans creating intellectual
patterns of values may NOT have explained their experience by distinguishing
(subjective) experience from (objective) phenomena, but by recognizing an
'I' that experiences, wants things and acts (a subject) and other, separate
subjects that experience, want and act. We would say 'nature was animate for
them', distinguishing objective 'nature' from subjective 'them'. They would
just say 'everything is animate' (if they could grasp the possibility of
anything being inanimate, which they probably couldn't). The first way of
explaining/understanding/reflecting did NOT involve distinguishing
subjective from objective, but distinguishing different subjects, 'I' versus
'them'. This distinction was very vague at first. Hence the experience that
a subject 'participates' in and has extra-sensory links with the rest of
reality (other subjects).
That's my answer to your challenge to David B. of 6/3 19:38 +0100 'to tell
[you] what Intellect was before SOM'...: not 'subject/object thinking' (or
something like that), but 'multiple subject
thinking/feeling/intuiting/sensing'.
I don't think Platt's 'thinking is better than feeling' is a (historically)
a very primary value of the intellectual level. What primitive humans did
when they first started explaining/understanding/reflecting upon their
experience would not be recognizable for us as 'thinking' (conscious
reasoning), but rather as a mixture of feeling, intuiting and sensing in
which intra- and extra-sensory perception were indistinguishable.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 16:01:57 BST