From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Oct 02 2005 - 09:51:47 BST
Case & Co.
30 Sep. you wrote:
> [DM]
> >> Well, you see my point: This biological complexity created an
> >> inner "mental" world evolving to dreams with animals, further to
> >> imagination and daydreams with Homo Erectus and onwards. But this
> >> is still at the biological level moqwise, and my idea is that this
> >> is INTELLIGENCE and the biological pattern that Q-evolution rode to
> >> the social stage. It is wrongly seen as INTELLECT!
The above is yours sincerely, not David Morey.
> [Case]
> Are you actaully saying the bilogical complexity "creates" the the
> inner mental world or do you mean that the complexity of the inner
> world is a function of biological complexity?
My "creating an inner mental world" naturally means that the
outer non-mental world was created simultaneously, they go
together. But my point is that this wasn't perceived as any S/O by
animals or the social reality humans.
> [Bo]
> >> But note, even if I called it a mental or inner word - indicating
> >> SOM - the biological level knew/know no such distinction, nor did
> >> the social level early man. When he heard voices, they were not in
> >> his head but gods speaking to him. Even present-day social value
> >> humankind applies (what intellect calls) supernatural explanation
> >> when confronted with (what intellect calls) natural events.
> [Case]
> The idea the early man took the voices in his head to be the voices of
> gods was propounded by Julian Jaynes in "The Origin of Consciousness
> in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" but I never thought anyone
> took it seriously.
You will be surprised what is taken seriously around here ;-). Of
course I know it's Jaynes. And what do we know about mankind's
world of, say, 50 000 years ago? I find it highly probable that their
"social" reality was totally different from our intellectual - S/O -
one. At least the said inner/outer capability weren't recognized as
SOM - dreams weren't perceived as "subjective" - but as
visitations from forebears, gods, whatever as real as reality
comes.
> [Bo]
> >> Conclusion: I hope you see my point: It is intellect that has
> >> created and upholds the schism between the inner and outer
> >> experience. If it is REAL has no meaning outside intellect, it is
> >> an enormous value that has created modernity (science of all kinds,
> >> but also the welter of value patterns that Pirsig lists in LILA) It
> >> is not something we can abandon, but must retain as the the highest
> >> level in the MOQ hierarchy, only subordinate to the system of which
> >> it is a part.
> [Case]
> I think the schism between inner and outer is very real. The inner is
> composed entirely of experience and the outer is who knows what?
Yes, yes, it's intellect or SOM that has the inner/outer (S/O)
schism as "very real". The funny thing is that so few have noticed
that the MOQ rejects the SOM, which means that it sees the
inner/outer divide as artificial. The dynamic/static one is MOQ's
reality. Even worse is the misunderstanding that the MOQ has
any affinity for SOM's subjective experience.
> The
> outer is known to the extent that it is, because people decided to
> quit arguing over inner ideals, about which we have no basis for
> agreeing, and focused on those things that we can come to
> intersubjective agreement about. I find it curious that a system with
> the unknown at its heart and an avowed preferance for the dynamic can
> be to so bogged down in a static heirarchy.
Thank you Case for taking an interest in these things (David M.
backed out). This last paragraph of yours escapes me.
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 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 10:03:34 BST