> Spiritual Previously:
> ...Those ancient folks that
> > were creative under their own accord used their
> noggin'. Now, the
> > folks that followed what the aristocrats,
> astronomers, and shamans,
> > etc... had to say about the world in a more
> complete socialization
> > process and mimicking behaviors (role-modeling,
> etc...), these folks
> > where valuing, socially...
[Bo]
> This is material for several arm-length posts and
> you admittedly
> have some Pirsig backing, but somehow it goes
> against the MOQ
> grain. The static hierarchy rose in time, there was
> a time when
> inorganic values was all there were (NB. The
> biological level may
> have made it at some distant planet, but that's
> irrelevant) then an
> epoch when biology ruled and consequently one when
> social experience was "leading edge". The latter
> necessarily included
> human beings with language and as intelligent as
> ourselves, but
> if their ideas are seen as intellect all goes
> haywire. Only later did
> the intellectual level emerge and IMO the
> description of SOM in
> ZAMM fits like the proverbial hand and glove.
This seems to be the old idea that evolution
occurs in a straight line. I believe Auguste Comte
came up with this. The idea that social evolution
goes from primitive to agricultural to industrial to
informational, etc... is in this tradition. But it
was debunked by Western Europe coming to grips that
agricultural societies could collapse back to
primitive and also not all cultures have found the
need to evolve according to this Western European
notion. Is this what your saying?
[Bo]
> I pick this from yours above:
> > Where I see the intellectual pattern in ancient
> cultures is those
> > people that came up with the myths. Those ancient
> folks that were
> > creative under their own accord used their
> noggin'.
> IMO this Is something different, namely
> "intelligence" and I think
> Pirsig went over it too lightly, for example in LILA
> (page
> The intellect's evolutionary purpose has never
> been to discover an
> ultimate meaning of the universe. That is a
> relatively recent fad.
> Its historical purpose has been to help a
> society find food, detect
> danger, and defeat enemies. It can do this well
> or poorly, depending
> on the concepts it invents for this purpose.
[Bo continues]
> Concepts are language and not per se intellect (to
> see concepts
> as different from reality is)
Concepts are language? Ok, how you got from the
above quote to this conclusion of yours, I'm lost.
[Bo]
> It's clearly intelligence he speaks
> about, because it's not only society members that
> needs help to
> find food, biological life is "hungry" too and we
> know that animals
> can be very smart and inventive, learning from
> experience,
> using tools ...etc. Consquently "intelligence" is a
> biological
> pattern.
Ok, I see your difference here between
"intelligence" and intellect. I'm not saying I see
the difference when it comes to social/intellectual
distinctions, just on this point above. This
intelligence above is not as abstract, and is more
biological. I guess your saying that previous
intellectual departures, such as the formulations of
myths wasn't as intellectual as intellect can be.
Further intellectualizations on this point would be
interesting. Did these first initiators of myths
debate over time what the myths are? This freedom
into the myths and how they are more delineated from
social inquiries and a 'land unto their own' seems to
be intellects push for freedom, but it would be the
recognition of intellectual patterns different from
social authority, thus, intellectual patterns unto
themselves different from what socialization processes
project unto people. These intellectual patterns
could be social thoughts, but when they are understood
as intellectual patterns that could be manipulated
thoughtfully, that's when intellect pushes for more
freedom unto it's own level. (I've gotta go, but
maybe we could further investigate this point.)
[SA previously]
> > I'm trying to point out that the levels don't
> exclusively fight against
> > each other. That would seem to be chaotic. Some
> cooperation does
> > exist. The previous level is the foundation of
> the level this previous
> > level supports. I do notice the conflict, as
> well. I'm saying it's
> > not all conflict though.
[Bo]
> Remember that the level context is only "visible"
> from the meta-
> level of MOQ, the levels are blind to this, that's
> why the MOQ
> may be such a revolution.
I still don't get what your saying on this point.
The levels are quality. Static quality yes, but
quality still. Intellectual static patterns are not
"blind".
[SA previously]
> > Notice the point in the comedy. Do you really
> hold yourself as
> > being on the 'high ground' or 'authority' of what
> the moq is all about?
[Bo]
I know I sound megalomaniac, but the MOQ is revolution
or
nothing at all. When I read ZAMM for the first time
(1978) I was
(as Leonard Cohen sings "oppressed by the figures of
beauty")
oppressed by SOM. All attempts to break its strictures
were
spited. IMO the "spiritual" (New Age) movement is
solidly inside
its premises. With Pirsig I suddenly saw the escape
route he
envisaged: SOM was a metaphysics (in a far wider sense
than
the Aristotelian ones, had in fact created the notion
of a
subjective theory different from reality) that had
emerged in time
and consequently replacable by a more comprehensive
metaphysics. The proto-moq looked promising, but with
LILA the
final MOQ had the weaknesses of an intellect not
clearly SOM,
but more like intelligence or SOM's "mind" .. or
something that
no-one to this day knows what is.
Ok, I'm glad you experienced the moq revolution.
I don't know why Lila became so weak for you, but I
found Lila to be an expansion of what you narrowly
call the meta-level. Lila expanded this meta-level to
be all the levels from inorganic to intellect. It is
a new way of thinking. A new intellectual pattern.
On this point we will not be able to convince each
other otherwise. But I did have some questions above
on some other points.
thanks,
heavy frost,
SA
P.S. We just had our first frost of this cold season,
yesterday. It was light. This morning I find a heavy
frost.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
