From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Nov 25 2003 - 08:00:10 GMT
Mati, Platt, DMB and interested parties.
On 23 Nov. Mati wrote to Platt:
> I have come to the point where I do believe that the intellectual
> level as has be been discussed by Bodvar, others and even hinted,
> though not committed to, by Pirsig himself.
Well put :-)
> Here is my rational. It is based on what is the Social Level. In my
> thinking it revolves around "Social learning" as a phenomenon.
> Biologically living creatures living in groups developed the
> capacity to communicate to one another in a way that was not
> biologically rooted. Most all living creatures have the capacity to
> learn from there inorganic and biological environments. But to learn
> from your biological species is a different matter.
You seem to have an affinity for the educational aspect of it and I
don't deny learning taking place at the social level, but is it THE
social indicator?
> It further developed the
> capacity of species to survive and evolve. This is the underpinning
> in my mind of the social level.
> Early man in many ways was similar to the animals around him and his
> biological will to survive.
Agree, but even so early man is also "social man".
> However man's capacity to learn socially
> grew. This was in large part with the development of language.
No objection just a comment in light of what Campell says:
Campbell: They first discovered death when they were first humans
because they died. Now, animals have the experience of watching
their companions dying. But, as far as we know, they have no further
thoughts about it. And there is no evidence that humans thought
about death in a significant way until the Neanderthal period, when
weapons and animal sacrifices occur with burials.
It sounds as if Campbell talks of humans before the Netherlands, yet
says that the realization of death was the human initiation. DMB
said:
> > But more to the point,
> > what Campbell is talking about here is not the beginning of
> > intellect, but rather the beginning of mythology, of the social
> > level.
...something I agree with most vehemently.
> Groups
> of early men created tribes or clans. With each step of the
> evolutionary process these group grew more sophisticated and so did
> there language
A small point here. The said Neanderthals lacked language
(according to research) thus there must be some social value
indicator prior to language yet different in nature from the body
"language" of social animals. Here (my) emotions may be the answer,
i.e. that sensation (pain from a bite for example) turned into the more
abstract "fear of a bite" and thus upheld the social order.(without
administering bites constantly). This at the most primitive stage; it
later developed into the whole range of feelings: Love and hate ..etc..
> and so did there capacity to survive. Socially man
> evolved in leaps and bounds through the capacity to socially learn
> from groups before them. A knowledge base was created that was the
> building block to socially evolve into primitive civilizations. The
> point is the sole purpose up to this point is only insuring man's
> capacity to survive. The mythos was part of the natural progression
> in asking why? Why does the thunder come from the heavens etc. They
> provided socially anthropomorphized answers. For the most these
> answers were socially benign and didn't impact the capacity to
> survive.
The survival value of living in groups is obvious, however, with the
myth stage, society had gone off ...on a purpose of its own .. and had
begun to control biology. It sounds as biological survival is the prime
thing (for you) and that the myths just were "superstructure", but each
level IS a reality of its own ...the higher even BETTER!
> Then there are the early Greeks philosophers, Thales, Anaximander,
> Anaximenes, and others that try something different. They tried to
> define reality as a rational thought. Not until Aristotle
> Subject/Object split was the intellectual latch provided for the
> capacity for intellectual level. The intellectual pattern value is
> also rooted to further help man's capacity to survive.
Only the comment that intellect also has (had) an evolution,
at first it was in the service of its parent level - society - and
thus not directly engaged in biological survival, rather social survival.
However, it also went off on its own purpose and in that process the
alliance with biology (described in LILA) formed, and in that sense
.....phew! Let me not "ride off" on my own hobby-horse.
> Through
> intellect we have capacity to understand the value of democracy.
I see what you mean perfectly, but democracy may better be seen as
a fall-out of intellect. (I see that Paul makes the same point)
> Democracy provides for educated people of that nation to make
> informed decisions about their lives through their governments. Go
> back to those early clans or the early Egyptians and share the idea
> democracy with them. It has no value to them; intellectually they
> didn't have the capacity. This is the current struggle in Iraq,
> which is a strongly rooted social system. The success of the US will
> be based on their capacity to build the intellectual capacity of the
> country. My concern here is the US will pull out before an
> intellectual capacity will be developed.
Wise words and something that demonstrates that intellect has
nothing to do with thinking! The Iraqis just think along social lines.
Had to under Saddam, but maybe Islam has something to do with it?
(and here I agree with you vs Paul)
(It seeps through that Mati and I have exchanged a few letters
privately, but I keep my old nickname as my MD identity)
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 : Tue Nov 25 2003 - 08:02:16 GMT