Chris. On 31 Jan 2008 at 22:12, Christoffer Ivarsson wrote:
Bo earlier: > >In Homer's time (1000 BC?) the Q-evolution had not reached the > >intellectual level, then neither Stone- nor Bronze Age had arrived > >there (not all present day civilizations for that matter) There are > >more examples of the Quality premises leading to the intellect=S/O > >conclusion, but enough for now. > My thoughts about the MOQ levels atm: I have to say, as I see History, > from an MOQ perspective, I don't see how the Intellectual level should > be credited to the Greeks only, If Pirsig says so, I think I will have > to disagree. This was a bit disappointing, I thought you had understood and agreed with my SOL interpretation i.e. that the intellectual level is the S/O distinction (SOM robbed of its "M") It's not "crediting the Greeks", it may have been a coincidence that it emerged there (in the then known world) there may have been a similar development in the East, but the requirement is a social level having reached a certain stage of sophistication and the Greek city states had . The point is also the that the 4th. level will be the S/O be it on earth or on another planet, but Pirsig does not say anything that may settle this matter. As you saw from my summary for Jorge, there are lots of support for the SOL interpretation, but then there are as many that contradicts it and before this intellectual issue is settled the MOQ is lame. There are those (DMB and Steve) who says they are satisfied with status quo, but they just don't understand. > Rather I have a thought that the intellectual level is something that > humans have had, and carried with them for a very long time, and that > it was this level that allowed them to as early as 8000 years BC > develop rather advanced societies. Not to alienate you, but this is what I call the "intelligence fallacy" that of seeing the 4th. level as SOM's mind - as thinking, but such an intellectual level makes the MOQ indistinguishable from the SOM's "Mind out of (brain) matter". It also throws the levels in disarray, intellect comes before the social level. > The social level as such was the dominant level, maybe as far on as > into "modern time" (whenever you choose to date that to). But, the > intellectual level has been there for a very long time, and the social > level, as well as responding in its own way to DQ also had to respond > to the new thoughts that DQ caused the Intellectual level to create, > hence the early Sumerian cultures did structure their society on a > religious basis - it was the first semi-intellectual understanding of > the world, derived from DQ stimulating the intellectual level, that > they had to work in into their social structures. This is an excellent presentation and with a realization of the said fallacy it may remain so. However, the 4th. level can't be lurking under the social level, it would be like life being present before the earth. Maybe it was in the sense that being brought to the earth by comets or whatever, but the universe had to be before life, that's plain. Just as plain is it that the intellectual LEVEL must come after the social and be on top of it. But I don't think you miss any points, it's just that THOUGHTS aren't intellect. > Gradually, the intellectual level grew stronger, and one can perhaps > see the last 10,000 years of history as a huge war between Intellectual > patterns of value and social patterns of value, where only recently the > Intellectual patterns have gained the upper hand. Ten thousand years ago! Do you have any indications of a social/intellect struggle going on? That age was totally immersed in social value, i.e: viewing existence through the mythological glasses. No skeptics that questioned the traditional explanation of existence. The intellectual movement started with the Greek philosophers' search for (objective) "eternal principles that transcended the old social reality (and viewed it as subjective) As said this may have occurred in India or China. The term "philosophy" in itself indicates a search for an objective reality - for truth. "Medieval philosophy" took God for granted, but this was influenced by the Greeks (Aristotle a Church Father) OK, enough! > I may have missed a lot here, and if I have, please point it out to > me, I am far from dogmatic. Perhaps it is a S/O ghost that makes me > analyze it like this, but if so, can you point out how? I think your only miss the said intelligence/intellectual distinction. If you can stand it I may expand on that issue. > MVH Ditto 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/
