From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 22:05:45 BST
Hi Platt,
>> Steve:
>> I didn't mean to eliminate participation in intellectual patterns from the
>> individual or the self. i agree that these are part of the forest of
>> static patterns that comprise the self. That's fine with me if you'd like
>> to add participation in intellectual patterns to your definition of
>> humanity. I don't think it is necessary, however.
>
> Humanity without intellect is a bunch of monkeys. The ability to collect
> and manipulate symbols that stand for patterns of experience (Pirsig's
> definition of intellect) distinguishs man from ape, plus a few genes.
Steve:
Do you see monkeys as participating in social patterns of values? I think
they probably do, but I didn't think that you thought so. Between the genes
and intellect there is the social level. It is this social level that first
separated us from the animals.
>
>> In fact, your ad hominen quote supports my case. When someone attacks
>> one's social self we consider the attack "personal." On the other hand,
>> when someone attacks one's ideas (intellectual self)we do not see it as a
>> personal attack. So the "person" that it is being attacked is the the
>> personality I was talking about as a social pattern of value.
>
Platt said:
> I see your point. It bothers me, however, that you categorize persons as
> mere social patterns, the realm where the Giant rules. We know what the
> Giant does to persons; he has them for lunch. Better to think of persons
> as individuals possessing intellect that can improve life by responding to
> DQ. That way persons are less likely to end up as fodder for the Giant's
> ugly ambitions. It was the guarantee of individual rights as protection
> against the appetite of the Giant that made the USA unique and helped draw
> powerful intellects from all over the world to its shores, yearning to be
> free.
Steve:
My point was that whether or not we recognize Tarzan upon meeting him in the
jungle will have nothing to do with what ideas he holds. We would first
recognize his biological makeup, but he still would not feel human to us
because he would not be a participant in our social patterns. But you are
right in that whether or not he holds any ideas at all would also be
important in the question of his humanity.
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 22:05:38 BST