From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Nov 14 2003 - 10:02:07 GMT
On 13 Nov 2003 at 10:07, Paul Turner wrote:
> There is much more to Jaynes' thesis than is contained in that paper,
> some of which may give you cause to reassess your (commonly accepted)
> explanation of gods. However, I'm not really trying to convince you to
> believe Julian Jaynes, I just found that his theory opened a new door
> onto some dusty old assumptions and seems generally in agreement with
> the MOQ. Bo has already pointed out some similarities between the
> historical interpretations proposed by Jaynes and Pirsig so I won't go
> further into it just yet.
Paul, Platt and all intellectuals.
I agree with Paul about it being more to Jaynes' than that single
paper. Platt's reference to a book in NY Times that allegedly goes
against Jaynes (one has to be a member to access that) I don't think
is relevant, that the Babylonians and Egyptians calculated by way of
math is no sensation. I believe it's Platts notion that the ability to think
which is intellect. ;-)
> Platt:
> ..but would look
> forward to your analysis of language and the bicameral mind vis a vis
> the MOQ.
> Paul:
> In terms of MOQ levels it is my current belief that, historically,
> language began as a social pattern of communication and instruction
> which later evolved to provide a method for latching thoughts *as
> patterns of thoughts*, not as patterns of the socially learned
> behaviour that may arguably be accompanied by thought. This latching
> of intellectual patterns is possibly linked with the advent of writing
> which provided a means of preserving patterns of knowledge previously
> preserved by ritual and custom. Pirsig notes in Lila that:
We agree here Paul, at least about language's role as a social pattern
and about it being instrumental in DQ's rise "out of society". I also
sympathize with your "difficulties" in understanding a reality of auditory
instruction (through heads or by ears) without accompanying
thoughts, our "reflecting on things" is so ingrained that it is almost
impossible to conceive a different way.
> "Cavemen are usually depicted as hairy, stupid creatures who don't do
> much, but anthropological studies of contemporary primitive tribes
> suggest that stone age people were probably bound by ritual all day
> long. There's a ritual for washing, for putting up a house, for
> hunting, for eating and so on - so much so that the division between
> 'ritual' and 'knowledge' becomes indistinct. In cultures without books
> ritual seems to be a public library for teaching the young and
> preserving common values and information." [LILA, p.442/443]
> And in Lila's Child he suggests that:
> "...books such as the Bible and Koran and Gita have been held to be
> far more important than any individual life. They have preserved the
> intellectual patterns that have saved whole cultures from degeneration
> into savagery. Similarly, it was the rediscovery of lost Greek
> patterns of intellect that is usually credited for the Renaissance."
> [Lila's Child p.313]
> Once intellectual patterns latch in their own right beyond the
> biological lifespan and experience of an individual and beyond the
> purposes of associated rituals and customs of societies they can grow,
> evolve and die with a higher degree of versatility and freedom and
> according to intellectual rules.
About intellect as something "beyond the biological lifespan". Hmm,
society is what goes beyond biology and the old cultures were
obsessed with what survives the individual, particularly the Egyptians.
"Beyond society" ... yes, that's it, and that social values (earlier
preserved as rituals) got a new versatility is definitely correct, but also
that they had to obey intellectual rules ...the last is the POINT.
> "Intellectuality occurs when these customs as well as biological and
> inorganic patterns are designated with a sign that stands for them and
> these signs are manipulated independently of the patterns they stand
> for. "Intellect" can then be defined very loosely as the level of
> independently manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and mathematics can be
> described as the rules of this sign manipulation." [Letter from Pirsig
> to Paul]
I am not all happy with the "sign (symbol) manipulation" definition, it is
language and it began far back in social reality and certainly contained
both grammar, syntax (rules of logic).
I believe things to have happened the way Jaynes suggests - auditory
language turned into "thoughts", but all with strong MOQ overtones of
this being DQ "hijacking" language to reach a higher level. This
created (the impression of) a mind-space and of a self
(consciousness) who looked "down" on creation. Thus all these things
are intellect's view of itself, while the Quality view (of intellect) is that of
it the subject/object VALUE.
But please don't let my (petrified) opinion deter you from exploring this
channel further dear Paul, I think we are on to the source of the Nile.
Sincerely
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 : Fri Nov 14 2003 - 10:04:01 GMT