From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu Jun 16 2005 - 14:30:21 BST
Hi Mike
On 15 June 2005 Michael Hamilton wrote:
> Hi Scott, Bo, Allen and, hopefully, some others!
> Thanks for the pointer towards Pirsig's comment on Oriental
> philosophy, which in turn has led me to investigate the Upanishadic
> period. Google threw up an extremely useful page straight away:
> http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/upanishad.html I think I'll
> have a lot more to say about this example of alternative intellectual
> patterns - Bo, that's all I meant by that phrase. I think you may have
> misunderstood my use of the word "alternative"? I merely meant it in
> the sense that Buddhism is an alternative religion to Christianity, or
> that curry is an alternative food to fish and chips, or that the
> Indian elephant is formed of alternative biological patterns to those
> that form a red squirrel.
I see and understand about "alternative" .... you said;
> suffient social developments to support alternative intellectual
> patterns
This and the biological examples (luckily) conveys a meaning
different from Pirsig's "... the Oriental cultures developed an
intellectual level independently of the Greeks". Had he said "the
intellectual level independently ...etc." More about this later.
> In the same way as different parts of the
> world have bred different biological/social patterns, they also may
> have bred different intellectual maps of reality. You may be correct
> that all such intellectual patterns must follow the same rules, but at
> this stage I'm far too ignorant of foreign intellectual traditions
> such as the Upanishadic perdiod to enter into debate about what these
> rules might be.
OK, but as said to Anthony, doesn't this logic make anything said
about reality "intellectual patterns"? When the Ancient Greeks
created their god and goddesses hierarchy, it was their map of
reality. So - again - (angering Allen perhaps ;) I must insist that
the intellectual LEVEL is a rebellion against this mythological
reality - which is - along with the religions - SOCIAL maps of
reality.
I join your "ignorance of foreign intellectual traditions", but Pirsig's
remark in the Paul Turner letter
* The argument that Oriental cultures would not be
classified as intellectual is avoided by pointing out that
the Oriental cultures developed an intellectual level
independently of the Greeks during the Upanishadic
period of India at about 1000 to 600 B.C. (These dates
may be off.)
..really intrigued me. If my above about intellect a rebellion
against the social level's mythological mumbo-jumbo, then only
the SOM as described in ZMM fits the role, and it's master-
pattern is the subject/object one ...the VALUE of this distinction
that is.
And consequently: An Oriental intellectual level would have to
toe this S/O line.
> Allen, while I agree whole-heartedly with your emphasis on harmony, I
> get the impression that you are trying to protect me from Bo's
> "heretical" suggestions. Please stop.
Thanks, any more from this person would just anger him further.
> We can easily locate the social level by thinking of language.
If for example the Neanderthals had language is not clear, but
they surely were social beings. I believe the social level along
with all levels when pursued down-/backwards reaches some
region where borders are fuzzy. But language as a human social
level pattern, definitely.
> We can
> easily locate the biological level by thinking of DNA. We can easily
> locate the inorganic level by thinking of atoms and molecules. These
> are all examples of high-quality static patterns on the said level,
> that constitute the parameters or building blocks for the next level.
Language as the building block for intellect I agree with ... most
intensely.
> Because there is no "next level" after intellect, there are no static
> parameters on the intellectual level by which we can locate and define
> the intellectual level. Since my last post I realised that this may
> mean that we can only locate the intellectual level by observing its
> conflicts with the level below, i.e. social value. This suggests
> rather vague definitions such as "questioning of authority and
> individual search for truth", which satisfies me well enough, but the
> debate rumbles on...
Exactly. Intellects conflict with Society is the pointer, and only the
S/O pattern fits the level-struggle parameter. The "thought realm"
leads nowhere.
Thanks for an interesting input.
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 16 2005 - 14:34:03 BST