RE: MD date of homo sapiens

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:22:59 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "MD mythos vs logos"

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com [mailto:SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com]
    Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 1:44 PM
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Subject: Re: MD date of homo sapiens

    sq: More absolute garbage from the 'garbage supremo' Dave 'DuMB' Buchanan.
    Does anyone take this asshole seriously?
    Language, which is the manipulation of symbols, is more than 3,000 years
    old. Therefore, the intellectual level is far older by a very long score
    than 3,000 years. How a statement like this can be dropped without any sense
    of irony is staggering.
    DuMB's arrogance is startlingly ludicrous, and only surpassed by his
    inability to deliver one original insight.

    dmb says:
    I think I see the theory you're operating with here. You'd rather be hated
    than ignored, right?

    sq: I could not care less about being ignored. I simply wish for the MoQ to
    be presented correctly.

    Charley says:
    Nagative attention is better than nothing, huh? You figure that if you can't
    raise my interest with thoughts and questions about the MOQ, that the second
    best thing would to evoke some kind of response by throwing out scatological
    insults. Sorry to disappoint you, but I find your attempts at abuse to be
    just as boring, vague and incoherent as the rest of your posts. Yawn!

    sq: Do you know how arrogant and narcissistic that sounds?

    Charly says:
    Yes, obviously, language is more than three thousand years old. Squawnk's
    mistake is the assumption that intellectual values are required in order to
    speak a language. This just isn't so. Language first emerged as part of the
    social level, along with her cousins myth and ritual.

    sq:
    'For purposes of MOQ precision, let's say that the
    intellectual level is the same as mind. It is the
    collection and manipulation of symbols, created in the
    brain, that stand for patterns of experience.' Lila's
    Child

    'Intellect is simply thinking' Lila's Child

    sq: From Paul's recent clarification:
    Intellectual patterns of value.
    The collection and manipulation of symbols, created in
    the brain, that stand for patterns of experience.

    An idea, concept, or thought representing a specific
    experience - biological, social, or Dynamic - but
    stored in memory (not just biological memory, e.g.
    books) as an abstraction from the experience.

    The symbol can then be manipulated in its own right
    without specific reference to the experience that
    created it. Intellectual realities are constructed
    from the symbols by making generalisations,
    assumptions and associations.

    sq: I think you will find that includes myth.
    There is a large discrepancy between what Mr. Pirsig says and your opinion.

    PIRSIG from chapter 30
    "Philosophers usually present their ideas as sprung from "nature" or
    sometimes from "God," but Phadreus thought neither of these was completely
    accurate. The logical order of things which the philosophers study is
    derived from the "mythos".The mythos is the social culture and the rhetoric
    which the culture must invent before philosophy becomes possible. Most of
    this religious talk is nonsense, of course, but nonsense or not, it is the
    PARENT of our modern scientific talk. This "mythos over logos" thesis agreed
    with the MOQ's assertion that intellectual static patterns of quality are
    built up out of social static quality. Digging back into ancient Greek
    history, to the time when this mythos-to logos transition was taking
    place...."

    sq: The mythos of social culture and rhetoric is intellectual. Culture and
    rhetoric here involve: 'The collection and manipulation of symbols, created
    in the brain, that stand for patterns of experience.' It may not be
    philosophy, but it is intellectual. From this comes philosophy, from
    philosophy comes scientific talk.
    So, you are in fact mistaking philosophy for intellect when you suggest that
    intellect has been around for 3,000 years are you not? (The correct answer
    is, 'Yes squonk! I see the error of my ways and i am most thankful for being
    disabused of my mistake. Thank you.)
    squonk

    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 Jun 15 2003 - 22:25:05 BST