Joe,
Don't you think knowledge can be gained by the group.
SA
--- On Mon, 7/14/08, Joseph Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Joseph Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Monday, July 14, 2008, 7:27 AM
> On Sunday 13 July 12:35 AM MarshaV writes:
>
> 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
>
> Hi Marsha and all,
>
> I like ³problem solving² more than ³knowledge for
> knowledge sake.²
>
> In singing sometimes I see a problem I can¹t solve, that
> someone else may
> have a handle on. The choir and director keep me on my toes
> functioning at a
> higher level. Solving a problem by myself sometimes
> doesn¹t work until
> someone says that¹s better, although at other times
> suggestions make me
> angry like "This is a church not a barroom." MOQ
> is a group effort, like
> Persig's family. Thanks Marsha!
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> On 7/13/08 12:35 AM, "MarshaV"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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/
>
>
> 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/
