Dear Scott and Gary,
Scott wrote 24/8 20:42 +0000:
'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'.
This change in consciousness was indeed an important one. According to my
definitions of the social and intellectual level the intellectual did not
come into being by 'reflecting' or by 'thinking about thinking' however, but
by 'connecting symbols with meaning'. The intellectual level 'is the
collection and manipulation of symbols ... that stand for patterns of
experience' in Pirsig's words (footnote 25 in my latest version of 'Lila's
child').
Connecting symbols (starting with rituals symbolizing 'cosmic order', as
Pirsig supposes in ch. 30 of 'Lila') with experience (their meaning)
requires conscious attention. It does not only require a change in
consciousness, it creates consciousness! Don't you think that this is a more
importing change than that of 500 BCE?
A child that can talk but not reflect on what it is saying can communicate
with an adult and can be aware of the higher quality of what the adult says
(and 'means'!). A Greek schooled by Aristotle could communicate with a
contemporary that had not made that change in consciousness yet. They might
even discuss for instance the (intellectual!) value of 'seeking truth'
compared to religious myths and keeping the connected rituals.
An early human, just over 'my' brink of the intellectual level, was only
dimly aware that his rituals (primarily making him/her 'feel' safer) also
symbolized some 'cosmic order' and that aligning his behavior with this
'cosmic order' (both in the ritual and in for instance the hunt that is
being prepared with the ritual) somehow 'helps', was 'better' than an
unprepared hunt. He couldn't possibly have communicated this primitive
intellectual value however to his contemporaries who were not conscious yet.
He could only communicate his emotions (his fear changing into trust) to
them. (These first humans among hominids may because of that have got roles
of leader or shaman.)
Now don't say (like -I think- Bo and David B. may do) that 'my' brink of the
intellectual level is actually the brink of the social level. Then you have
to assign another mayor change, the birth of (rather than a change in)
culture (patterns of behavior that can be learned and passed on), the role
of only a minor change inside biological evolution.
Gary repeated 30/8 9:44 -0700 his idea that the social level and the
intellectual level came into being simultaneously.
Would you agree, Gary, that these levels AS DEFINED BY ME can't possibly
have come into being at approximately the same moment of (pre)history?
Passing on (socializing young ones in) patterns of behavior that are
important for group survival does not require 'history, mythos, symbols,
etc.'. These were not there yet at the birth of 'culture' (in my definition
of it). It does require -as a minimum- a dim awareness of roles and status,
of the distinction between old/experienced and young/unexperienced.
Do you happen to experience some value in my definitions? (And what are your
alternatives?)
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:23 BST