Arlo, MOQtalk > [Chris] > Yes. Arlos reasoning is quite logical I'd say. > > [Arlo] > Thanks. > > [Chris] > Because I lean towards the interpretation that the split between > seeing the self and the world as one and the self and the world as > separate is the emergence of the intellectual level - however I > really don't think this can be accredited to the Greeks only, but > that is my job to prove later on - then this sense of individuality > would perhaps not be there at all when language etc developed. > > [Arlo] > What you read in that post was an extreme condensing of evolution. > No, I do not think the "self" was immediately present at the onset of > language. I think (and Pirsig supports this) the "self" is an > "intellectual idea" that emerged out of the substrata of social > patterns much later, and only after the social substrata had evolved > itself sufficient complexity. > > [Chris] > I mean, It is impossible for us to think ourselves into a way of > thinking such as one of not thinking about thinking, but we may > hypostasise that when events occurred that accelerated the > development of cultures, then the notion of "self" that later on > became so near-impossible to get rid of wasn't there. So what would > this mean if we think about the development of early cultures - the > social level? > > [Arlo] > I veer from Pirsig on what is commonly considered here to be the > "split" between social and intellectual levels (if any consensus can > be said to have been reached). I place the use of symbols at the > advent of the social level, since symbolic interaction co-occurs with > collaborative behavior and mutual attention. For me, the distinction > between the two levels (and this is just my present-day thinking) is > somewhat understood as a "cognition/metacognition" break. That is, > the intellectual level emerged when people started thinking about > their symbols as entities-in-themselves. Prior to this point, the > "self" was not a concept but was likely an unexamined reality of > bounded biological separateness. We likely had symbols to represent > identity, I, you, me, her, him, etc., but these symbols were > more-or-less unexamined aspects of our day to day lives. > > At the onset of the intellectual level, that "I" symbol became a > subject of analysis itself, a "reality" to be examined and > contemplated. At that moment, the modern notion of "self" was born, > and along with it other intellectual patterns that were the > philosophical result of the consideration of symbols as existants > themselves. > > I place the advent of social pattern emergence (tied to use of > symbols) at about 90,000 - 110,000 years ago, when the first > archeological records of symbolic thinking appear in the world (in > Africa from Oued Djebbana, and near Israel at Skhul Cave). These > artifacts grow in complexity, but maintain a level of symbolic > artisanry, up to about 24,000 - 20,000 years ago with the art found > in the Pech Merle caves in Francem , with a rapid development > beginning around 40,000 years ago. So considering what early > cultures, pre-intellect and pre-self, were like, this would seem to > be a good era to look at. > > Interestingly, although the artisans of Pech Merle were sophisticated > enough to locate and produce materials, paint and sketch a wide array > of symbolic art depicting people and animals (along with human-animal > hybrids), they left us no known record of who they were, signatures > on their art, no historical account of their journeys, only amazingly > beautiful art. We have no recorded language from this era, no > hieroglyphs, no Rosetta Stone, nothing. (Indeed, I'd make the > argument that recorded language (written, pictoral, hieroglyphic, > etc.) was an outgrowth of the intellectual levels ability to reflect > on symbols as things-in-themselves. This would make the onset of > written language (again, of any form) to be correlated with the > emergence of the intellectual level - maybe not its dominance but its > point of origin). > > What do you think?
I think that this is a very good analysis, and one that is close to my own. Because I do think that Bodvars SOL explanation is a good one, and I put it to myself in the terms of the split between when the ""I" symbol became a subject of analysis itself, a "reality" to be examined and contemplated" and before this was so. Because if you think about it, the logic that we have built and that is based on this idea of subjects and objects grows naturally from this point - when people starts to make this distinction. The problem I have had with the SOL and Pirsigs talk about the Greeks is that this kind of thinking can be found way earlier and also parallel to the greek development. If I'm allowed to expand, I'd say that when the Quality Event occurs and people start to "think" in this way , the development sets of towards a kind of rationality that is bound to be very similar everywhere. Now, I also think that the variations in how this rationality is constructed has to do with the development of the social level, and how strong it is. I don't know If I'm making any sense to you, but I have a quote here, it is from the Diamond Surta, chapter 6: "Why is this? It is because these sentient beings do not again [abide in] the notions of self, person, sentient being, or life span. Nor do they abide in the notions of the dharma, or the notions of non-dharma. Why? If these sentient beings their minds grasp to these notions, then they will cling to self, person, sentient being, and life-span. If they grasp to the notions of phenomena, they will attach to self, person, sentient being, and life span." I haven't really put this into clear-cut formulations yet, but this self-business (in general) intrigues me. Thoughts? Regards Chris PS Those things about the cave-art is indeed interesting and I thank you for this input DS 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/
