From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 09:23:28 GMT
Platt, DMB and interested parties.
21 Nov. Platt wrote :
> Previously I suggested that how and what early man thought was largely
> speculation, and that I doubted some of Jaynes' theories. DMB advised
> that I was just showing my ignorance and that to correct it I'd do
> well to read, among other experts, Joseph Campbell. So from the local
> library I got a copy of "The Power of Myth" which is a verbatim record
> of conversations Campbell had with NPR's Bill Moyers. As I mentioned
> before, I learned from Campbell to my surprise that the U.S. was the
> first nation ever to be established on the basis of reason. Imagine my
> further surprise when Campbell specifically backed my claim that what
> early man thought is largely speculation. Here's the dialogue:
What early man thought (about) is largely speculation, THAT I agree
with (is there a distinction here I haven't got) but Jaynes' theory isn't
about what ancient mankind thought, but that thinking in the self-
awareness form was absent ...and became what we call "conscious"
by some evolutionary change at that period. (The physics behind it is
of no interest for the MOQ)
About your view being confirmed by Campbell is so well addressed by
DMB that I won't try to do my own. Even if Campbell is no MOQian his
approach to the mythological age fits the social epoch (when the
Social level "reigned"). However, if his works throw any light on the
Social-Intellectual transition I don't know ...tell us DMB!
...snip
> Since Pirsig equates 'thinking' with intellect, I push intellect back
> to early man as the main characteristic that distinguishes humans from
> animals. I agree with Paul, however, that intellectual patterns per se
> did not arise until the emergence of writing and the ability to 'think
> about thinking," or as Paul put it, "latching thoughts as patterns of
> thoughts."
If Pirsig equates thinking with intellect I question. The more I study
this part of his letter (to Paul) the more cryptic it gets. It is as if he
can't bring himself to abandon "thinking", yet does so by pointing to
"thinking" as something going on at all levels (which makes it
impossible as a definition). What is meant is of course
INTELLIGENCE, wonder why this term is such a taboo?
> Whether an entire culture like Egypt can be called 'intellectual' is
> also a matter of conjecture, especially when one tries to apply the
> same appellation to the U.S. :-)
Yes, (suddenly) you are right. The Egyptians weren't intellectual in
the MOQ sense, it makes a mess of the levels to speak about a value
before the level: Of life before biology ...etc. Their mental powers
however did not lack, they calculated and built great structures
physical and mental, thought up mathematical theorems (maybe),
manipulated symbols logically (used language, verbally and
hieroglyphically) ...etc. But the background of it all was the
mythological explanation. The SKEPTICAL INQUIRER arrived with
intellect.
In my opinion
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 -
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 : Sun Nov 23 2003 - 09:26:05 GMT