Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 16:46:39 GMT

  • Next message: abahn@comcast.net: "Re: MD Two theories of truth"

    Hi Platt and Moqians.

    1 Nov. you wrote:
    > Here's where we part company. I believe intellectual patterns (ideals
    > and such) have been around since the emergence of thinking animals--
    > namely humans--some 35,000 year ago. (There's even evidence that
    > Neanderthals were thinking creatures.)

    Let me think loudly. We have Pirsig's letter where he draws the
    intellectual line with the Ancient Greeks, but it sounds as only from
    necessity lest it would stretch away into absurdity.

    PIRSIG:
         I think the same happens to the term, "intellectual," when one
        extends it much before the Ancient Greeks.* If one extends
        the term intellectual to include primitive cultures just because
        they are thinking about things, why stop there? How about
        chimpanzees? Don't they think? How about earthworms?
        Don't they make conscious decisions? How about bacteria
        responding to light and darkness? How about chemicals
        responding to light and darkness? Our intellectual level is
        broadening to a point where it is losing all its meaning. You
        have to cut it off somewhere, and it seems to me the greatest
        meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is confined to
        the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have
        no|corresponding particular experience and which behave
        according to rules of their own.

    But this is NOT right in my opinion. If "thinking" (as a definition) allows
    for intellectual patterns to go back to the inorganic level it is clearly
    wrong, so why doesn't he discard it?

    A level must be identical with its patterns, anything else makes a
    mess of the whole MOQ. There was no matter before the inorganic
    level; no life before biology ...etc. Thus we can't speak about
    intellectual patterns before the intellectual level. Either intellect is older
    than the Neanderthals or it was social value that guided their
    "thinking".

    In the letter Pirsig re-introduces the "manipulation of symbols"-
    definition from "Lila's Child", but I am as unhappy with it as with
    thinking. Symbol-manipulation is a definition of language and thus the
    mind-intellect again.

    Conclusion (of my thinking):
    The "mentality" of Neanderthals, chimps, earthworms, bacteria and
    chemicals have 2 different explanations: Intellect's and Quality's.
    Intellect's is a S/O-grid put over all existence; conscious chemicals,
    minful organisms, social beings with thoughts. Quality's however is
    that all these "skills" ARE the respective value levels ...at various
    stages of complexity. F.ex. the Neanderthal tribe reflected the social
    level at a primitive stage, while the Egyptian Empire reflected it at a
    most advanced stage. And we are sort of obliged to the Quality way
    of seeing things. The intellectual level is a static level with a limited
    point of view, it can't be QUALITY'S grand vista.

    > Intellectual level values grew
    > to dominate social level values around the time of Woodrow Wilson. At
    > that time the intellectual level was born, but intellectual values
    > influenced society long before that, namely, in laws guaranteeing
    > certain individual rights--the Magna Carta for example.

    I agree with all this, but a definition of intellect must be found that
    allows for the LEVEL to have begun at a point in history, one can't just
    see it as something fading way into absurdity. Pirsig drew a line at
    Ancient Greece, but made it sound like an arbitrary decision, I would
    say that it definitely WAS the Greeks or their Homerian forebears
    ....everything points to it . Didn't you sort of agree with my
    Jaynes/Pirsig comparison? Don't we have a solution there? Even Paul
    seemed positive.

    > Now we're engaged in a huge battle with Islamo-fascism to determine
    > whether social or intellectual values will dominant our lives.

    I still agree, and with the rest of your post.
      
    > In any case, doing philosophy, looking at paintings, claiming truths,
    > and picking up bar ladies is fun, although it's been awhile since I
    > engaged in the latter activity. :-)

    How true :-D
    Bo

    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 Nov 03 2003 - 16:53:58 GMT