From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sat Mar 01 2003 - 22:24:34 GMT
Dear Steve (and David B.),
You asked David B. 1 Mar 2003 15:49:07 -0500 how he would contrast his view
on the intellectual level ('thinking about thinking') with mine (copying
reasons as static latch).
I'd say it is a difference between roughly 'thinking about thinking' and
'thinking about behavior'. David's intellectual level is therefore smaller
and originates later in time than mine (and -I think- Pirsig's). My
intellectual level is much larger than 'philosophy' and so is Pirsig's, who
equates it (in 'Lila's Child') with 'consciousness' and 'mind'.
David's distinction between social and intellectual level may be important
and useful in a lot of circumstances, I don't think it is sharp enough to
warrant a separate (discrete!) level.
David wrote 1 Mar 2003 13:07:21 -0700:
'SOM can't solve the mind/body problem because it does not see this middle
term. It goes directly from biological brains to intellectual ideas, as if
there were nothing in between, as if myth, ritual, religion and other social
patterns were merely immature, irrational, unscientific ideas.'
I think David's version of the MoQ still can't solve the mind/body problem,
because it goes directly from biological brains to myth, religion and other
patterns he calls social. My social level is in between David's social level
and the biological level. It can be 'seen in' (or rather modeled after) the
period between the moment when hominids split of from anthropoid apes (1 or
2 million years ago) and the moment when homo sapiens appeared (50.000 -
100.000 years ago). In this period 'man' did pass on so much more patterns
of unthinking behavior between generations (culture) than anthropoid apes
did, that these could substantially increase the chances for group survival
(i.e. could create patterns recognizable as 'societies'). These patterns of
unthinking behavior were a very different type of 'static latch' BOTH than
the DNA which latched survival of species AND than the motives (either
mythic/religious story-type motives or rational motives) which latch
survival of individual persons. Relatively fixed (stable) patterns of
unthinking behavior had to be there before 'man' could start thinking about
that behavior and start to 'see' myths, religion etc. in it. Anthropoid apes
may at times spontaneously exhibit behavior that resembles human rituals,
but they don't pass on elaborate patterns of such behavior between
generations. So even though they are -biologically- our nearest kin, they
stay far from the threshold were they could develop something like
'religion' and there must have been a 'missing link'.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 22:23:44 GMT