Hello Chris
On 12 Feb.you posed a quick question:
> If anyone can point to some elaborate, abstract thoughts that did not
> serve the values of the social level or the biological and were
> clearly not a part of a S/O distinction(and was not the MOQ) - would
> that prove the SOL invalid?
Is this Pirsig's about about "advanced intellectual without any
S/O content" for instance mathematics?
Look Chris, the first naive MOQ definition was more like all things
that included a person sitting down "thinking" was intellect. If that
person wrote things down on parchment or drew figures it was
patently intellect, but all these intuitive definitions has fallen one
by one. Language - spoken - is clearly from long before the 4th
level. Written language is also terribly old and in the letter to Paul
Turner Pirsig says:
But if one studies the early books of the Bible or if one
studies the sayings of primitive tribes today, the
intellectual level is conspicuously absent. The world is
ruled by Gods who follow social and biological patterns
and nothing else.
See, he deems it non-intellect. People (of the said age) also
construct complex buildings and edifices: The "Hanging Gardens"
of Babylonia and/or the Pyramids f.ex. and it's plain that they
knew "mathematics" in the calculating sense. I recently read that
Pythagoras learned about the hypotenuse and legs cubes (you
know?) in Egypt, but only with him - with the Greeks - did these
things become intellectual in the sense of constructing theorems -
proofs that these things are objective, eternal principles and will
always work. I think the term "mathematics" is a Greek invention,
the old Babylonians just used their knowledge without any
theoretical fuss.
Hope this is relevant.
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/
