On 3 Sep 2002 at 13:19, Wim Nusselder wrote:
> You wrote 3/9 9:59 +0200:
> 'In the discussion about Intellect's relationship with Society I see a
> lot of "packaging and redirecting of social substance" by Intellect.
> Some of the participants to the extent that there is no Social level
> left. (Wim and Wavedave).'
> Could you PLEASE take care not to misrepresent my ideas. In my view
> the social level is far more important than the intellectual level,
> both in terms of the period in which it was the highest available
> level of static quality for hominids (±2 million years BCE until
> 100.000 à 50.000 BCE) and in terms of the part of our behavior that is
> governed by social (unconscious) rather than intellectual (conscious)
> patterns of values.
Dearest Wim.
BCE is before Christ? And as you see it the intellectual level starts along
with the Cro-Magnon era - with language? OK, that means that there was no
period when it dominated the human outlook. Well, if you insist who am I to
stop you, but in my view language was the sophisticated social pattern that
became intellect's vehicle, but for millennia it was "in the service" of its
parent level.
> For me there is a social level when there are
> social patterns of values.
Phew! Sure, but no level comes out of the blue but have its origin in the
parent level so there must necessarily be an infancy period in the bosom of
the family.
> I don't see the value of saying that there
> is only a social level when social patterns are not only in the
> service of biological patterns of values any more (have gone off on
> purposes of their own).
It took me some time to ponder the meaning of this sentence, but take it to
mean that you see no value (in me saying) that the social level only started
when it had stopped serving biology. That you see it this way can't be
helped, but what value you find in your interpretation is beyond me. Then
the biological level started with the forming of the carbon atom !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> You may disagree with my definitions of the social and intellectual
> levels, but I don't like discussing with someone who doesn't even try
> to understand my views (judged by your disability/unwillingness to
> represent them properly).
I'll try to mend my ways, but it depends on our respective definitions. It is the
social level - as I define it - that you eliminate, that's elementary Dr.
Nusselder ;-). I should be more careful of course, but can't put an IMD (in
my definition) at the end of each sentence.
Bo
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