From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Fri Jun 20 2003 - 03:00:54 BST
Squonk,
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
Clearly this includes language. Therefore, intellect is as old, and indeed possibly older than language. So, we are looking at tens of thousands of years of intellectual evolution before ancient Greece.
Yes, in fact I would say that intellect has been evolving for billions of years. But in regard to the point at hand, I am ok with saying that the intellectual level is as old as language but only if it is recognized that a new level emerged at c. 500 BC, when intellect started to become independent of the social level. So perhaps I should join Sam in calling the fourth level the eudaimonic level -- the emergence of the autonomous individual.
Scott [prev]:
For the evidence that it did spring into existence (not suddenly, but gradually), see
Julain Jaynes, The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
Owen Barfield, Saving the Appearances
Bruno Snell, The Discovery of the Mind (I haven't read much of this, but I think it is relevant)
sq: You are referring to consciousness? I have no argument with that.
I am referring to subject/object consciousness, not consciousness in general (which I also think has been evolving for billions of years, but never mind)
Scott[prev]:
The "confusion" you refer to arises, in my opinion, in the fact that it is practically impossible for us to imagine being a person without this subject/object division we all now have. Yet the evidence shows that it is a recent development. Without that division, there is no manipulating of symbols to *stand for* existing static patterns, that is, there is no "thinking about".
sq: It is possible and you do it all the time. I do my best to forget this cultural inheritance and stop thinking about subjects and objects. I used to do it all the time when i was younger, before my culture began to insist otherwise. We all still do it all the time anyway, at those creative times and in those situations when we lose our sense of self.
I said practically impossible to imagine, not that it is impossible to stop being in its grip. Even so, there are a couple of considerations. One is that we need to distinguish between -- to paraphrase Wilber -- pre-S/O stoppages and trans-S/O stoppages. The other is that almost all professional philosophers (in the US and UK, anyway) base their philosophy on S/O principles, and this is a forum to discuss a philosophy that attempts to go beyond that. So for both considerations, I think it is worthwhile to examine the origin and development of the S/O mindset.
Scott [prev]:
But they did not come in the subject/object form that they do today. The intellect appeared to come from outside, now it appears to come from inside.
sq: Appearances are all we have to deal with. Even intellectual patterns have an appearance of static morality. A better way may be to consider the DQ/SQ tension of intellectual experience.
The S/O form is (in my opinion) the DQ/SQ tension of current individuals. So what I am proposing is that it (the S/O form) be seen that way, and not as a metaphysical absolute. To do that one needs to study it, not just ignore it. and I see the shift in 500 BC as vital to understanding it.
- Scott
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 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 03:02:20 BST