Hi Bo, you are insistent that there is no subject/object distinction at the social level, adding that the social humans of the stone age 'lacked - or were blessed by not possessing - the intellectual notion of being a lone subject facing a matter world governed by natural laws'. You seem to suggest they were in some way better off because they had less free will (freedom is frightening), their postures and behaviour being more limited by social/ritualistic injunctions - we will never know but that's a different point for another discussion.
You are confident that the Stone-agers recognised self from other; doesn't that alone indicate that their thinking was based on subjects and objects? On the other hand, the intellectual notion of being a lone subject facing a material world, that is, being objectively aware of yourself as subject and the material world as object, surely this is what we refer to as self-consciousness? Perhaps what you mean is that consideration of the idea of subjects and objects can only take place on an intellectual level, and that social level thinking cannot conceive of such things? The 'stimulus' I referred to was anything from the objective world impinging on the individual - a telephone ringing, someone saying something to you, a pain in the neck or even the effect of a drug you have taken. The Alexander I referred to was Frederick Matthias Alexander, a teacher of 'the use of the self', who, incidentally, taught John Dewey. The Spiritual Adirondack's description of the cougar he saw that hesitated before jumping the ravine clearly had a sense of himself and the danger his situation presented, but we have no evidence that the cougar could ever go to the meta level and think something like 'I see myself in this situation where I am deliberating about jumping the ravine'. If this self-consciousness is the characteristic of the intellectual level then I'd have to say that it is only a potential in humans and that the majority of people never realise any of this potential. Regards and thanks for your reply, -Peter On 13/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Peter and Group. > > On 12 Nov. Peter wrote: > > > I was out shopping with my 82 yr old mum the other day and was struck > > by how she was at the mercy of her train of associations - she seemed > > to be losing her volition and unable to deliberate, my dad even more > > so since he fell and banged his head recently and now rambles and > > seems to be in a waking dream a lot of the time. It was very sobering > > to see them - some people die while they are in mid gesture, without > > warning or pain but most of us face the slow decline. So it goes. > > I'm not exactly young and may be rambling too. > > > I thought I agreed with Bo, that SOM distinguishes the intellectual > > level, but as you have pointed out, subjects and objects are necessary > > at the social level too. > > There is no subject/object distinction at the social level. Pirsig > often used mind/matter instead of subject/object and it shows > what's at stake. The social level is as present as ever, but to > highlight things I like to evoke the time when it was existence's > leading edge. The Stone Age people surely knew self from other, > they also had separate names, knew their ancestors ...and every > social relationship as well as we do, better because the group > was their primary focus. > > What they lacked - or were blessed by not possessing - was the > intellectual notion of being a lone subject facing a matter world > governed by natural laws. They lived in a malleable reality, one > that rituals could change, governed by forces who would be > swayed by offerings. Chantings that could bring animals to their > pitfalls, paintings in caves also had some ritualism function. We > see this social reality still at work in religions, prayers, > sacraments etc. > > > Certainly, a characteristic of the most impressive people that I have > > met is an apparent ability not to be taken by the stimulus, not to > > react immediately, but, instead, to be able to momentarily say 'no' to > > the stimulus, pause, and then respond appropriately after a kind of > > reflection. This 'ability' has been referred to as 'inhibition and > > direction' (in the Alexander world) and 'apperception' by others. If > > intelligence is anything to do with the advantageous navigation > > through life of the individual then this ability to pause is one of > > the key attributes of that intelligence. Conversely, the absence of > > this ability to pause and reflect, is a characteristic of the herd, > > the tribe, the social mind. > > Most penetrating observations Peter. "Stimulus"? Is that other > people's influence or drugs, and is Alexander "the Great" one? > Anyway, we are wrong to think of the social reality as some herd > mentality, a senseless "stampede". Alexander's time was in the > midst of intellect's birth throes, but his focus was certainly at the > social, emotional level, that of urging his men on to ever new > heights of "Aretê", but he certainly was a most intelligent man > who both paused and reflected on his life and his tactics. You > also raise the issue of intelligence, but see it as synonymous with > intellect, but IMO this murks the 4th. level. If you can stand a > "chautauqua"? > > The idea is that each level rises on top of the former thereby > adopting ALL former level's patterns for its own purpose. Another > tenet is that no level knows the level context, this is only revealed > at MOQ's meta-level. IMO intelligence has its origin at the > biological level but was first adopted by the social level and then > by the intellectual. The said origin is the neural network that > enables storage and retrieval of former experience (memory) and > makes higher organisms capable of learning from experience. > With the enormous human brain this ability reached an all-time > height and (possibly) initiated the social level. Anyway when the > latter rose on top of biology this "intelligence" became a social > asset. But now THE point. That animals don't regard this storing > and retrieval (dreams for instance) as taking place at a subjective > realm is plain, but even at the the HUMAN social level - after > language - there were no S/O distinctions, dreams were regarded > as gods speaking to them and the silent language we call > "thoughts" were no innocent activity, but could be heard by the > gods/forces ...etc. Only with the the intellectual level did dreams > become "just dreams" and the said thoughts were seen as taking > place at a mental realm. The point is that what began as a > biological pattern went through these value metamorphoses, > ending up as intellect's S/O distinction. But the 4th level, being as > blind to the level context as the rest, regarded its S/O as reality > itself, hence SOM. > > > This is a semantic mine field but I'd agree and say that > > self-consciousness (not the embarrassed kind) could be understood in a > > similar way to this apperception. The self-consciousness I'm talking > > about should tend to be inclusive of the whole self, the corporeal > > self and it can be learned and practiced. > > Mine field, you bet! The "apperception" term is not in my > dictionary, but the so-called self-consciousness is the very same > INTELLIGENCE that intellect has elevated to a third entity who > seemingly surveys both the subjective and objective realms and > is why SOM (intellect before the MOQ) was sure that the S/O > distinction is reality's deepest ground. > > Enough > > 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/ > 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/
