Wim, 3Wd,
A four-year old can talk, but cannot reflect on what he or she is
saying. Similarly, an adult can think with or without reflection (or
mindfulness). I would maintain (following Barfield) that this ability to
reflect, to think about things, to *question* one's thinking, required a
change in consciousness, one that started around 500 BCE, and so that
prior to that we cannot say the intellectual level existed. (It also
shows why we need to postulate the social level, and why it makes sense
to restrict it to humanity. A pre-intellectual human society works under
different, more flexible patterns than any non-human grouping).
As I see it, if this distinction is not made, then it is impossible to
find any value in thinking about this, or any other question, at all.
- Scott
3dwavedave wrote:
> Wim
>
> You asked:
>
>
>>My conclusion from the paleopsychology quotes you provided in
>>that post was that this jump occurs between the social and intellectual
>>levels. Do you agree?
>>
>
> The more a worry it around the more uneasy I am with the whole social
> level per se. First it doesn't correspond to most of the other
> 'perennial' philosophies old or new, most of which go inorganic,
> biological, then go mind, or self- consciousness, or intellect or
> something very similar. Second many here have supported language written
> or spoken as the step from biological to social but how does this occur
> without the intellectual capacity to manipulate symbols. The argument
> being intelligence and intellect are two different things. Which I agree
> with but that still evades the issue. Third many of the patterns of
> value we call social in humans, are very similar to what we observe in
> animals. ie specialization or divisions of labor within a species,
> altruism, setting and defending boundaries, kinship bonds, mating for
> life, family rearing of young etc. We can go on and on, but deciding to
> draw the social boundary at humans not only seems pretty arbitrary it's
> very difficult to do if you just look at values and disreguard species.
>
> But the social level is useful, so I guess right now I would say that
> social should not be exclusively human. Social values should be pushed
> back in time and would require sufficient intellegence and memory to
> recall and act based on some values other than hardwired biological
> instinct. This might include most mammals. Then I would put intellect
> emerging (first time it is ever evident) somewhere around or just before
> cave art and the like. But of course this is does not jive with the MoQ.
> But then again what does?
>
> 3WD
>
> The 4 characteristics of intellect still seem to hang together, at least
> for me.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:22 BST