From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 15:13:14 BST
Hi Bo, DMB, all,
Bo said to DMB:
> THIS is the problem, you automatically conclude that "understanding"
> is Q-intellect. By what faculty did the ancient people understand? We
> agreed that the social age built great cultures, constructed cities
> ...etc. and we also agree that the said "social repetitious ..." is
> nonsense, or have you backed out there too?
>
Steve:
I like the term "social age" for describing the time when social patterns
were dominant because it differentiates the uses of the term "social level."
You still seem to be confusing "social age" and "social type of people" with
"social pattern of value." Though social patterns dominated in the social
age, intellectual patterns were still present, just as social patterns are
still present in modern times.
Your mention of "social repetitious..." seems to be a reference to Wim's
idea that I have supported of recognizing a type of pattern by the way it is
latched. I find Wim's formulation especially useful in identifying social
patterns as those that are latched through unconscious copying of behavior.
Pirsig's discussion of celebrity is a good example of the quality judgment
by which behaviors are chosen to be copied (without thinking). I think
"charisma" is another good word for describing the social quality that
respond to without thinking. As with the hot stove, we may be able to
explain our response to a charismatic person after the fact, but the
intellectual explanation follows the quality response to social quality.
I don't recall you explaining what you thought was wrong with this way of
categorizing social patterns other than that you seem to find it
offensive--that it somehow diminishes the social level. I can't see that it
does. You continue to try to woo DMB toward your S/O level idea because of
what you see as his defense of the social level which is surprising since
for DMB, to say someone is on the social level is an insult. I don't see
myself as an attacker of the social level and I don't see DMB as the social
level's defender. (To me the phrase "on the social level" makes little
sense because I think about the levels as types of patterns of value. I
translate it as "this person or forest of static patterns is dominated by
social values.")
DMB said:
>> It may have some unusual features, but it is still
>> just a philosophy. (Spaeking of which, If I had to come up with a
>> pithy little definition of intellect I'd say its "thinking about
>> thinking".)
>
Bo said:
> "Unusual features", I dare say. Your definition of intellect as "thinking
> about thinking" is correct from intellect's p.o.v, but seen from the "Q-
> level" a radically different picture emerges.
Bo, can you explain what you mean by this bit about points of view and the
"Q-level"?
DMB first presented "thinking about thinking" as a definition of philosophy,
and I think it's the best one I've heard. However, I find it far too narrow
to define intellect. DMB, the fact that you limit intellect to "thinking
about thinking" explains why we differ so much about categorizing
intellectual patterns of value. I'm glad to finally have your definition of
intellect, DMB, rather than examples of intellectuals.
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 : Mon Sep 15 2003 - 15:28:10 BST