From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 14:31:47 BST
Dear Bo,
I have to disappoint you. Unlike you suggest 6 Oct 2003 17:40:38 +0200, I do
not disagree with Robert P.'s definition of the intellectual level as the
collection and manipulation of symbols that stand for patterns of
experience.
I do disagree with your alternative, "Intellect is the value of seeing
symbol-manipulation as different from the rest of experience". The
intellectual level (which I guess you mean when you write 'intellect' here)
is not a value, but the sum total of the patterns of value of a specific
type. It is the 'standing for' relationship that characterizes 4th level
experience, the experience that a symbol is different from and yet like some
other experience.
I prefer to define the intellectual level in another way than Robert does,
by the way intellectual patterns of value are maintained (by copying
rationales). My way of defining defines the same intellectual level as
Robert's way, however. It only makes it easier (in my opinion) to see the
discreteness of the levels. This difference in ways of defining is
comparable to the difference between the biological level as life or as
patterns of value maintained by copying DNA/RNA.
Another misunderstanding of my views shows itself when you write:
'Intellectual value is no built-in part of a culture. Maybe necessary in
your view though because you see social behavior as mindless.'
You are right. Cultures do not necessarily contain intellectual patterns of
value. Before the start of the intellectual level, cultures only consisted
of social patterns of value.
Social level (unmotivated) behaviour is mindless only because I equate (like
Pirsig in 'Lila's Child') the intellectual level with 'mind'. It defines
'mind' rather than that it says anything meaningful about the social level.
Another misunderstanding:
'Just because Pirsig says that the rituals may be the social-intellect
connection it does not mean that intellectual reality is synonymous with
rituals.'
The intellectual level is not synonymous with rituals in my view. Rituals
are complex sets of behaviour. Some of them may have formed the threshold
between social and intellectual patterns of value, because they may have
made the insight dawn on early homo sapiens that they might be performing
those (religious) rituals 'because' somehow 'cosmic order' required them to
(because it had to be maintained or because they had to stay in line with it
or whatever).
A last misunderstanding:
'The intellectual level before Homo Sapiens?'
No, I said that Robert's definition of the intellectual level in my view
might put its start back 50.000 - 100.000 years. Homo Sapiens appeared
100.000 - 150.000 years ago, if I am rightly informed.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Tue Oct 07 2003 - 14:31:57 BST