Greetings,
Why couldn't the function of the Intellectual Level be as simple as 'problem
solving'? That could make it a group experience as well as an individual
experience - considering alternatives methods, abstracting possible outcomes
and etc. The quest for all knowledge then becomes the quest for the
greatest number of known and new alternatives to find the best solution.
Marsha
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Maurer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual
On Friday 11 July 2008 2:55 PM Chris writes to Joe:
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?
Hi Chris and all,
[Joe]
IMO The Intellectual level evolves from a conflict present in the social
level. ³Culture hands us a set of glassesS..² The conflict within
self-awareness is best described as a mechanical/conscious conflict as a
description for my actions. To ³always² do what I learned at my mother¹s
knee destroys my individuality. I forget to be who I am. My actions are
static/mechanical. I have lost conscious control of my life. ³Are my
actions my own for which I am responsible, or am I mechanically following
the crowd?²
[Joe]
The social level evolved from the inability of organic evolution to answer:
Who am I? I am held accountable for my actions by finding a place in
society e.g. child, parent. As years passed I followed ³culture² which
mechanically defined who I am by my past action. I fall asleep. I go with
culture. I forget I am self-aware. I cannot answer the question: Who have I
become?. A bull does what a bull does.
[Joe]
Culture at the social level is a Bull. S Conscious, undefined behavior,
becomes subject to O mechanical, defined behavior. The need arose for an
intellectual level to evolve to place S/O in direct relationship. SOL!
[Chris]
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?
[JOE]
I would distinguish undefined ³behavior² S, from ³behavior² that is
mechanically defined in culture O.
[Chris]
Couldn't Bodvar agree? Couldn't Platt agree (oh Platt, there is your beloved
individuality!)? Couldn't Magnus agree? All of you?
[Joe]
IMO defined and undefined behavior at the social level is not sufficiently
distinguished by ³individuality!² I must work on myself.
Sleep now.
//Christoffer
Joe
On 7/11/08 2:55 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/
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/
