On 29 Oct. Spiritual wrote: > 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?
What I'm saying (repeating) is that the MOQ is revolution. Pirsig is the the first ever to point to a S/O metaphysics , how it emerged with the Greeks and possibly will be replaced by the DQ/SQ metaphysics. If you claim that Comte's positivism matches the static level evolution? And other see anti-SOMism and budding MOQs all over the place, it has become a competition of NOT mentioning Pirsig. What has this site come to?. MOQ's social value is about individuals joining in a common cause to escape biology's jungle law and has nothing to do with agricultural evolution. One must understand its enormous scope, that it does not concern itself with petty things like life and death, but much loftier issues ;-) Spirtiual: > Concepts are language? Ok, how you got from the above quote to this > conclusion of yours, I'm lost. Pirsig said that intellect used concepts in its social role. This I find awkward, concepts is=language and language is a social pattern, consquently what helped find food was/is INTELLIGENCE not intellect. However, intellect tends to see its S/O quality everywhere and language becomes abstract symbols ABOUT some concrete reality. > 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. Exactly, neither biology nor society know the abstract/concrete distinction it arrived with intellect. Animals have memory but they don't regard it as "mental" (I know it requires language, but just for the sake of making a point). Nor did the social level know any S/O, ancient people used language without knowing about it being "symbols" or "concepts", nor did they have a notion of their thoughts being in their mind. The mind/matter divide is also intellect. > I guess your saying that previous intellectual departures, such as the > formulations of myths wasn't as intellectual as intellect can be. I'm saying that there were no intellectual "departures" until the intellectual LEVEL and that this only arrived with the Greeks. The ancient myths were social-value. To regard them as "theories" is intellectual retrospection. > Further intellectualizations on this point would be interesting. Did > these first initiators of myths debate over time what the myths are? That's the very point there were no debates, the skeptic, objective attitude wasn't invented! If ancient myths were some budding intellect, then "my" crow that has learned to hoist a food ball by its beak displays some biological intellect. > 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.) When intellect arrived on the scene it regarded all existence as own value (all static levels do that) and began to apply its S/O matrix on to everything, among other things "... understanding the ancient myths as intellectual patterns". The MOQ however ... UNDERSTANDS INTELLECT AS A VALUE PATTERN! > 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". If one is at the intellectual level (with no knowledge of the MOQ) one is at SOM and regards its (MOQ's) efforts to bring it down to the more humble role (as a static level) as outrageous. > 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. I won't convince you, I know, it's more a self-education. Bo 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/
