From: Mati Palm-Leis (mpalm@merr.com)
Date: Wed Nov 26 2003 - 01:37:10 GMT
Mark, Bo, and MOQ folks.
Mark
I can assure you that I am not Bo or Bodvar in disguise. Though I have
been known to talk to myself, I don't like to make a habit of it. :)
Also I don't have the intellectual background he does, but I will take
your concern as a sort of compliment.
As to the fact that over time we have exchanged letters, I have always
referred to Bo as Bodvar. In fact for whatever reason I never made the
connection that Bo was Bodvar until he made a reference to a MD posting
of his early in our exchange.
His reference in his latest post was to the fact that I referred to him
as Bodvar rather than Bo. To you guys he will always be Bo and I respect
his identity as such. I hope this will put it too rest. If not, too bad.
(I am reading your paper and hope to have a comment or two in a week or
so.)
"Bo" and MOQ folks
Bo wrote: 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?
Mati: I believe yes, learning is the social indicator. It is this
process that maintains the levels of social values of the social level.
Emotions that you alluded to are still in my mind an SOM leftover of
sorts. Though I do agree that emotions play an important part in early
education of children, but as students become "intellectual" emotions
don't play the same role. For the past 15 years I have been involved in
education. I feel that more than every our role in education is to
promote intellectualization as never before. But what is difficult is
that in the Educational Literature there is very much on what
intellectualization is. Other than the discussion on MD it hasn't been
really discussed at all that I know of.
> Early man in many ways was similar to the animals around him and his
> biological will to survive.
Bo: Agree, but even so early man is also "social man".
Mati: So were some of animals around them. But it was the capacity for
diverse communication that allowed them to evolve socially beyond the
animals around him.
> However man's capacity to learn socially
> grew. This was in large part with the development of language.
Bo: 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. Snip...
Mati: I am reminded of Pirsig sharing about Chris's death. About that
the physical existence was gone but the patterns that were Chris were
still with him. I have seen dogs that have lived and their owner or a
fellow dog dies. The remaining dog will exhibit behavior similar to
"sadness" or "depression", I believe that they are experiencing the loss
of patterns in their lives that owner or other dog represented. Several
weeks ago a 9 year boy was killed on the road by our home. My wife went
to over to offer some assistance. It was a horrific sight and he was
clearly dead but his mother tried CPR till the ambulance was there.
Beyond the horrific experience, I have wondered about the boy who I
didn't know and never met till that event. The only relation to that boy
was his tragic end. Also perhaps it gave me an extra reason to hug my
daughter who turned 9 today. Otherwise I have no further thought about
it. Death is a biological function that is socially recognized and
through language rationalized. But deaths real value is recognized by
the relationship of value patterns we share in life.
Bo:
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.
Mati: I can only agree in that death was a social rationalization and
perhaps was fertile ground for intellect, but not intellect itself.
Language would have to further evolve to have the capacity for
intellect.
Bo:
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..
Mati: They may have lacked formal language but I am certain they were
able to have some kind of communication. They had to otherwise I believe
they could not have existed as such. Emotions may have been part of that
communication process. Emotions are start as a biological pretext, such
as a baby crying. But as the baby develops it learns it is its first way
of communication with world around them. My son at three loves to be
emotional at times (crying) when he is not pleased about the world
around. I evaluate the reason of his displeasure, and if it not valid
(socially by my reason) I ignore him. He is slowly learning those
emotions don't play with me in certain situations. Anyway the point is
emotions have a biological pretext and social context, but learning
through advanced language projects the social level as emotions can't.
In running a school there rules (social level). When student break the
rules there are consequences, some students respond emotionally others
are able to understand the social context and move on without emotions.
Bo:
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!
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.
Mati: Point well taken.
Bo:
.....phew! Let me not "ride off" on my own hobby-horse.
Mati: Ride'em cowboy. Yee ha... :)
> Through intellect we have capacity to understand the value of
democracy.
Bo:
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)
Mati: I can accept this; it is not a major issue in my mind.
Take care always,
Mati
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 : Wed Nov 26 2003 - 01:40:54 GMT