Hi Chris: Right on.
Platt On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Christoffer Ivarsson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'D LIKE ALL OF YOUR TAKES ON THIS. Please. > > Joe. It's late and I'm not sure how well my brain functions at the moment, > but your post produced this though of mine: > > If the intellectual level is the quest for knowledge for knowledge's sake > alone - > Can this quest come to be without a distinct *I* to perform and be the > vessel of that quest? > > Or is it so that the social level had to evolve to such a degree that it > produced the basis for the idea of a distinct and separate *I* to form - and > only when the social level had provided this *I* could the intellectual > level emerge? > > Could this be it? That when social structures become so evolved that > distinct and separate *I's* are created that provides the vessel for the > intellectual level? > > Couldn't Bodvar agree? Couldn't Platt agree (oh Platt, there is your > beloved individuality!)? Couldn't Magnus agree? All of you? > > > Sleep now. > > > //Christoffer > > > > [Chris had written] > >> This thing regarding the nature of the intellectual level has proven to >> be, >> well, difficult - to say the least. I think we can all agree that the >> nature >> of the intellectual level is that of a way of >> responding/understanding/seeing/etc Quality in ways that are different to >> the ways that the other levels /responds/sees/understands Quality. >> >> Most everyone of you are fully aware of the debate concerning the "Symbol >> manipulation" given by Mr Pirsig and other explanations and >> interpretations >> of the nature of the intellectual level - most notably Bodvars SOL. >> >> I myself tend to discard the symbol manipulation explanation because of >> the >> - as I see it - quite obvious reason that this is not in conflict with >> anything. The MOQ is a moral order, as we all know, and the different >> levels >> have more or less competing "views" on Quality and how to follow it. Thus >> I >> am inclined to thing along the paths of >> >> "What is not by it's _fundamental nature_ in service of either the >> inorganic, the biological or the social level?" >> >> As I said - manipulation of symbols doesn't really cut it for me - where >> is >> the FUNDAMENTAL conflict? >> >> Today I thought about "human nature". Human nature and what thing it is >> that >> is usually connected to the expression that it is in "the human nature". >> >> The Quest for knowledge. Embedded in us since - well, pretty much always. >> This drive that seems to be something that is a fundamental part of what >> makes humans humans, and something that - of course - may service our >> biological needs and our social standards, but that in essance is >> separated >> from these things, that in essance is something that strives towards >> something quite aside from these Patterns of Value. Knowledge for >> knowledge's sake. >> >> I am not sure that it *is* the Intellectual level, but it sure seems to be >> a >> most notable manifestation of it. >> >> Knowledge for Knowledge's sake. Alone. >> > > [Joe wrote:] > >> Hi Chris and all, >> >> Evolution as conflict resolution, I like that. The INORGANIC reproduces >> by >> collision. The individual is changed, conflict is profitable. >> >> The ORGANIC level reproduces in two ways, by cell self-division, or by >> cell >> wall penetration by a sperm cell. What conflict has been resolved by the >> evolution of the ORGANIC LEVEL? The integrity of the one remains intact. >> More than one individual arises from within rather than from chance. THE >> CONFLICT of reproduction by COLLISION is resolved. >> >> The SOCIAL level evolves to CONSCIOUSNESS/SELF-AWARENESS. The individual >> knows changes are occurring, but an undefined self is untouched and alone. >> CONFLICT between the ONE and the MANY. >> >> The INTELLECTUAL level evolves. A structure of Law for S/O conflict in >> the >> one or the many. >> >> Does evolution stop? Interior relationships within one demand resolution, >> the tyrant and the citizen. >> >> HIGHER SOCIAL level evolves to enlightenment S only. A conflict with an >> Internal Tyrant???????????????? >> >> HIGHER INTELLECTUAL level evolves to enlightenment S only. A conflict >> with >> One does not exist???????????????????????????? >> >> Joe >> > > > 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/
