Dear Bo,
The core of your 2/9 8:08 +0200 post is (again):
'The way you see [intellectual] patterns ... sends intellect so far back
that it next to eliminates the (human) social level.'
No, because I send the start of the human social level also back and far
enough to leave it a longer (pre)historical period of being the highest
level of static quality (near 2 million years) than the intellectual level
(50.000 - 100.000 years).
I take your view to be that the social and intellectual level start only
when social and intellectual patterns of values have gone off on purposes of
their own. According to you patterns go off on purposes of their own long
after their birth and only after a considerable period of only serving their
parent patterns of values.
Your description of the transition between biological and social indeed
clarified your position. Although you now have made clear when social and
intellectual patterns start and what defines them in your view AND when the
social and intellectual levels start and what defines them in your view, I
still find it unsatisfactory that you don't make them start at the same
time. With enough explanation both distinctions are clear, but wouldn't it
be simpler (and entail less potential for confusion) to make them start at
the same time? Is it more than a matter of definition? What are the
advantages according to you that outweigh the greater potential for
confusing?
The 'statement of [mine that] flashed by about "emotions"' happened to be
made in the context of a post which explains my position about the start of
the social and intellectual levels. I copy it under this e-mail. In that
context I indeed -like you- associate 'emotions' with the social level (and
'reasoning' with the intellectual level). (But do you associate them with
the social LEVEL or with social PATTERNS OF VALUES? Does this association
start with social patterns of values starting to serve biological patterns
of values or with social patterns of values starting to go off on purposes
of their own?) But for me that is not enough to define the social level,
because in another context perception, intuition, emotion and reason all
belong to the intellectual pattern of values for me, i.e. in a context when
we are aware that they are different ways of assessing
'truth'/'quality'/'existence of something' and judging relative value (= SOM
'value').
You wrote: 'To me [Pirsig's idea of 'intellect' trying to dominate
'society', 'society' trying to dominate 'biology'] is part and parcel of
it.'
What is for you the advantage (outweighing the potential for confusion) of
explaining conflicts as conflicts between levels over explaining them as
conflicts between patterns of values within levels?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
Aan: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Verzonden: vrijdag 30 augustus 2002 23:20
Onderwerp: Re: MD Definition of Q-intellect
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 - 16:06:30 BST