From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Oct 13 2003 - 22:04:11 BST
Dear Bo,
You wrote 11 Oct 2003 08:31:58 +0200:
'What "seems very strange" ... the way I interpret you, or that I don't
accept that intellect is where the rest of experience consist as symbols,
thoughts and/or ideas?'
It is strange that you seem to interpret me as holding that the intellectual
level is a type of experience that is NOT 'symbols, thoughts or ideas'.
(You wrote 9 Oct 2003 09:54:05 +0200:
'[the intellectual level] Not a value??? This strongly indicates a detached
mind-intellect where the rest of experience exist as symbols, thoughts or
ideas - which is old SOM.')
I'd rather say that the intellectual level, also known as 'mind', consists
of symbols, thoughts and ideas and that 'the rest of experience' is anything
BUT 'symbols, thoughts or ideas'. We experience these symbols, thoughts and
ideas because they embody (intellectual) value for us. This intellectual
value consists of their representational value: the fact that we experience
them as 'standing for' other experience.
This non-intellectual 'other experience' does not 'exist in the mind', but
1) in persistent matter ('stuff you can kick' as David M. called it 10 Oct
2003 20:51:17 +0100),
2) in life forms that survive,
3) in behavioral patterns that 'work' (and therefore give 'social status')
and
4) -as an exception, and only after the transition from 'divine voices' into
'thoughts' around the 3rd century BC made 'thinking about thinking'
possible- in other 'symbols, thoughts and ideas' that DO exist in the mind.
(Since the ancient Greek intellectual experience can be self-referential.
Before that it only referred to non-intellectual experience.)
You asked 'why "sum total"?' in [my statement:] 'the intellectual level ...
is ... the sum total of the PATTERNS OF value of a specific type'.
Because the static aspect of reality (= experience = value) consists of
patterns, experience that repeats. If we want to subdivide this static
reality in 4 exhaustive levels, we have to throw all those patterns (= the
sum total of patterns) on 4 different heaps according to some criterion that
helps us to see that they are of different types. The intellectual type of
patterns (all of them, in other words: the 'sum total' of them) belong on
the intellectual heap and together make up the intellectual level. Is that a
clear enough answer?
You continued:
'Again I must ask you to listen to my reasoning. ... ancient mankind "heard
voices" ... which they identified as their gods speaking. Then some change
took place that made these voices into thoughts ... it was the impression of
an internal (subjective) reality different from the external (objective)
that made for the new era.
This makes language the "carbon" of the social-intellectual transition and
the relationship with the actual element's role in the inorganic-biological
transition is striking. Carbon is found in all biological patterns and
language is found in all intellectual patterns, but none ARE in themselves
the upper level)'
I HAVE listened to you, Bo. I have even understood you and agreed that the
change you describe makes for a new era. BUT that is not enough to make
'language the "carbon" of the social-intellectual transition' or to make
that change of era that transition. Period.
You give no reason why THIS change of era is THE social-intellectual
transition and why the addition of 'copied rationales' to 'copied behaviour'
(which I take to be the social-intellectual transition) is not.
You have been arguing that my dating of the start of the intellectual level
would leave no time for the social level to be the top level (after having
relieving the biological level of that role). I have refuted that, however:
My definitions of the social level and the intellectual level would leave 1
or 2 million years between the start of the social level (among the early
hominids) and the start of the intellectual level (among early homo
sapiens)!
I DID give a reason for my dating of the start of the intellectual level. It
follows from my definition of the intellectual level and from the way I
define the levels in general: by the way in which their patterns of value
are maintained/latched.
You only STATE: 'Well, this is the pre-historic magical reality, but IMO not
the coming of the intellectual level.'
You did not tell WHY it is not the start of the intellectual level.
Finally you write:
'I believe the fallacy is seeing the internal component only (SOM's mind) as
the intellectual level, and that inside this "mental" realm the rest of
existence exist as "symbols".'
I do not succumb to this fallacy. My intellectual level consists of stable
patterns of relationships between (what's perceived as) 'internal' and
(what's perceived as) 'external' (but also -in your new era- of
relationships between 'internal' and 'internal'). (If 'dog' stands today for
this type of animal, tomorrow for another type and the day after for yet
another -possibly dangerous...!- animal, that's not what I would consider a
'stable' intellectual pattern of value.)
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 : Mon Oct 13 2003 - 22:13:00 BST