Bo, thanks very much for supplying additional
examples about the question of the Greeks and S/O.
They, together with some of your latest remarks to
Ivarsson, do indeed throw more light into the linking
of 'intellect', 'SOM',
' S/O distinction', 'the Greeks', etc. in the context
of SOL.
I have been following with interest your exchange
with Chris Ivarsson because the question of the
appearance of the distinction between S and O
intrigues me very much. I'd venture to say that the
disagreement between both of you is only apparent, as
I hope to show in the following.
Ivarsson wrote:
" 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 will
have to disagree".
It seems to flow, from the various Pirsig quotes
pointed out by Bo, that Pirsig 'did' say so. However,
no need to disagree because Bo is using a "stipulative
definition" of intellect and 'intellectual level'; on
the basis of that definition, the rest follows
logically.A stipulative definition is one "where a
term is given a new meaning for the purposes of
argument or discussion in a given field. This sort of
definition may differ or even contradict the
dictionary or lexical definition of the word currently
in vogue".
The currently in vogue lexical defs.of 'intellect'
are of the sort: The ability to learn and reason; the
capacity for knowledge and understanding or the
ability to think abstractly or profoundly. Using these
Chris is IMO quite right in asserting that it looks
wrong to assume that intellect started suddenly 1000
years BC instead of 5000 or more
just a matter of
meanings.
Moreover, Bo says: "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,
"
Since the civilizations and cultures of
Mesopotamia and Egypt, are strictly 'East', then, no
contradiction at all. Bo admits that it could have
happened previously outside the Western world.
Actually it appears that the S/O distinction was in
place at least between 3000 and 4000 years BC; I say,
'at least' because there seems to be little documented
evidence before that and History is mute in the
absence of documents or artifacts. There is quite a
lot of documentary evidence to support the contention
that objective notions and properties are at least
that old and if any of you are interested I'll expound
on them. Perhaps no need, because Bo must be aware
that it all depends on the meaning ascribed to
intellect, since he says:
"but I can't for the life of me understand what
intellect
was before the Greeks .. lest one reverts to the
'thinking' definition."
Of a more fundamental nature is the observation of
Bo:
"However, the 4th. level can't be lurking under the
social level; it would be like life being present
before the earth"
Within the context of the MOQ the 4th level "could
be lurking under the 3rd", if it were to distance
itself from the assumption that the levels are
"discrete, not continuous". If the levels were thought
as fuzzy (in the sense of fuzzy sets), so that some
patterns could be jointly social to some extent and
intellectual to some extent, then Ivarsson's argument
concerning the Sumerian cultures (and many other
common-sense-ones) would be a valid one.
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.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/
