From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Thu Jun 23 2005 - 20:05:17 BST
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 8:12 AM Mike H writes to all,
Mike: 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!
Hi Mike,
I'm Joe,
I'm not in favor of describing an intellectual pattern as a *belief* or *set
of beliefs*. IMO A re-description of *belief* by other *beliefs* is a social
pattern, which compromises the integrity of the intellectual level in
communication. Who knows?
Your assertion that "beliefs are not identical to thoughts, although they
are linked" recognizes this difficulty. A system where thoughts are composed
by beliefs may be valid in a language that uses word order or case endings
in its syntax. What about a language composed mostly of nouns which would
use a mystic facility for understanding? I am thinking of music or painting.
IMO for there to be a moral order between inorganic, organic, social and
intellectual levels I would argue for integrity for the levels. My approach
is to see each level as the center of gravity of discrete forces. For the
intellectual level 'consciousness', for the social level 'will-existence',
for the organic level 'attention-purpose', for the inorganic level 'gravity'.
If evolution is compromised 'Who has the biggest stick?' is an important
question.
Joe
> 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 : Thu Jun 23 2005 - 20:43:08 BST