Yeah, it may have been late Chris. I also see knowledge itself consuming people, taking over their lives, they lose control of themselves and knowledge goes on its merry way sometimes building it's neat little structures and we are taken up in its' own inertia. Vessel's? I can't think without these woods. I guess, maybe.
SA --- On Fri, 7/11/08, Christoffer Ivarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Christoffer Ivarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, July 11, 2008, 10:55 AM > 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/
