From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Wed Jun 22 2005 - 17:54:28 BST
Mike,
Sorry to be so tiresome about this, but Owen Barfield has already knocked
your thesis down. He shows how your various presuppositions derive from
having a type of consciousness that only started to appear with the Greeks,
though it didn't achieve its present absolute split between subject and
object until about 1500 CE. It is only with this type of consciousness that
such beliefs as:
"the human _capacity to think_ has its roots in biology"
and your disbelief at the claim
"You're [Bo, but me too] not telling me that before the Greeks, nobody ever
wondered about those basic
philosophical questions "how and why did the world come to be?" "who
made the world?" Pre-scientific man answers in the only way he can: by
stipulating a God."
could happen. Pre-scientific (if by that you mean pre-Greek,
pre-Upanishadic, etc.) humanity did *not* ask those type of questions,
because the answers were given to them experientially. They *experienced*
what we now call gods, or Spirit. We do not, so *we* have to ask those
questions. You, and all modernists, SOMists, Darwinians, etc., assume that
early humanity experienced the same sort of sensory world that we do.
Barfield shows that this is not the case, that there were even differences
between medieval and modern sense experience. So if you really want to blow
SOM out of the water, read Barfield. He attacks it at a much deeper level
than Pirsig (with the consequence of gettng different results).
Also, on a pedantic note, the theo- in theory stems from roots meaning
'seeing' or 'contemplating', not 'storming' or 'raging' as in the case for
the theo- in theology (according to the New World Dictionary).
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Hamilton" <thethemichael@gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:23 AM
Subject: MD Clearing up this intellectual mess
Greeting to all patient SOL debaters,
This is an ambitious topic, but I've decided that this is the best way
to outline my position on intellectual patterns of value. It's very
simple, and I'm just going to put it up here in plain view, like a big
bowling pin with a big tag saying "Knock me down if you can!" If it
survives, I'm convinced that it has Occam on its side.
Bo has often stated that to equate "thinking" with intellect is to let
SOM pollute the MOQ. I tend to agree. I certainly agree that in a
general sense, the human _capacity to think_ has its roots in biology,
and was then invaded by the social patterns of language. The need for
a narrower definition of intellectual patterns than "thinking" has
been forcefully stated by Pirsig. I think you're all familiar with the
quote from the Paul Turner letter, but I'll repeat it here because it
gives a useful point of focus:
"If one extends the term intellectual to include primitive cultures
just because they are thinking about things, why stop there? How about
chimpanzees? Don't they think? How about earthworms? Don't they make
conscious decisions? How about bacteria responding to light and
darkness? How about chemicals responding to light and darkness? Our
intellectual level is broadening to a point where it is losing all its
meaning. You have to cut it off somewhere, and it seems to me the
greatest meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is
confined to the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no
corresponding particular experience and which behave according to
rules of their own."
Yes, there is most definitely a need to "cut it off somewhere", so
long as we remember that evolution is continuous, not discrete. And I
think I can see Occam frowning at the "manipulation of symbols"
definition. It certainly hasn't helped at all in the recent SOL
debate.
The SOL sets out to ensure that intellectual patterns extend no
further back than the Ancient Greeks and their S/O divide. This omits
one of the key things about the emergence of static levels as outlined
in Lila: patterns from a higher level can exist in the service of a
lower level, _before that higher level has emerged as something
independent_.
Again: patterns from a higher level can exist in the service of a
lower level, _before that higher level has emerged as something
independent_.
Bearing this in mind, we can make a lot more sense of the recent
exchange between Bo and myself regarding mythos, which I quote now:
> MH replies to Bo:
> I think the examples you give _must_ fall into the intellectual
> category. Where else can they fit?
Bo interrupts, crying SOM!:
Again this residue from SOM; A mind or thinking intellect that
every utterance - written or verbal - about existence must fall
into. No, mythologies weren't "primitive intellect" but social value
patterns.
MH continues:
> Can they possibly be social, like language? No.
> The Bible _uses_ language, but for a higher purpose than
> mere communication. It attempts to present a picture of some kind of
> truth.
Bo continues to cry SOM:
I doubt if the Old Testament has any reference to "truth", but in
Christianity this newfangled Greek (intellectual) concept appears.
Your writings demonstrate intellect (as SOM) firm grip, you look
back through its glasses and see intellect's imprint all the way
down through the social level.
MH, in the present:
You're right, the Bible wouldn't talk about "truth" in the Greek
_objective_ sense, but how about "the word of God"? You're not telling
me that before the Greeks, nobody ever wondered about those basic
philosophical questions "how and why did the world come to be?" "who
made the world?" Pre-scientific man answers in the only way he can: by
stipulating a God. Who has the answers to all the mystifying
questions? God! Truth comes from God, because he knows - he made
everything. These are the best explanations available to the
pre-scientific mind. So I hope you won't cryctu SOM when I say that
the Old Testament was a primitive attempt to explain and describe
reality.
Now I'm going to agree with you on something. These attempts to
explain reality were not part of an intellectual level. There was no
independent intellectual level before the Ancient Greeks.
BUT!
They were intellectual patterns nonetheless! Their _value_ was
dictated by social considerations, but they were not social patterns.
To borrow a phrase from Bo, these theories (notice the theo- prefix
denotes God) about reality are expressed using the social "carbon" of
language. They have no social or communicative function. Societies
survive just fine without knowing any answers. In fact, from society's
point of view, this concept of "truth" is very dangerous, because it
threatens the authority system (social patterns of value) that keeps a
society together.
But anyway, my interest isn't in showing that mythos was indubitably
one thing or the other. My interest is in showing that a complete, and
_much_ simpler categorisation of static patterns is provided by the
following definition of intellectual patterns. It's shockingly simple.
An intellectual pattern is a *belief*, or set of beliefs.
Armed the distinction between the nature of a static pattern and the
static level that determines the value of said pattern, we can see
that before the S/O divide, the value of beliefs was entirely shackled
to the needs of society. It's quite possible that a kind of natural
selection occured - if a belief was detrimental to a society, one of
two things happened. Either the leaders of the society eradicated the
belief/believer, or the belief spread, leading to the destruction of
the society. For example, can you imagine a totally nihilist society
surviving for very long?
And this, I suppose, is where SOL comes in. The S/O divide states that
truth is independent of any individual and any society. Thus, as
described in ZMM, intellectual patterns (beliefs) free themselves from
the dictates of social value and begin to pursue the ideal of
objective truth, or "knowledge".
Note that beliefs are not identical to thoughts, although they are
linked. Every static level has its foundations in lower levels -
intellectual patterns were made possible by (and transmitted by) the
social medium of language, and in turn, thinking (a _biological
function_) makes this possible.
That's enough for now. Remember the tag: "Knock me down if you can!"
Spare nothing - use the heaviest argumentative bowling balls you can
find!
Regards,
Mike
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
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 : Wed Jun 22 2005 - 19:19:13 BST