Christoffer and Gang. July 13:
(Bo before) > The emergence of intellect (roughly 500 BC) may seem like "always"but > humankind is infinitely older (ZAMM): [Chris] > Ah, yes. But you and I differ on the point that your intellectual > level then becomes only S/O. I know we differ, but its impossible to have anything else than a S/O- intellect and keep the MOQ intact. For a social/intellectual moral struggle to emerge intellect must be the rationality that deems all social patterns as irrational. Even more so for the struggle between intellect and the MOQ (Quality) What Pirsig calls "a code of Art".. > Or perhaps we don't. I certainly hope sot. > See, now I think that the intellectual level is, in essence "the quest > for knowledge" - as this is clearly in conflict with the other patterns > - and this, starting with the question "Why?", must perhaps have a > basis consisting of the notion of an "I" to rest on. The quest for knowledge is definitely an intellectual pattern - in the same sense that democracy, freedom of expression, the independent judicial system ... etc. are. All are fall-outs of the objective - rational - attitude. > This "I" notion doesn't have to be evolved into subject/object > thinking per say, I think. I may argue from the premises that SOM=Intellect, but I can't for the life of me understand what the 4th. LEVEL was before SOM. And if so it didn't start with "I think", but with the search for eternal principles something that coalesced as TRUTH. There certainly was - and still is - individuality at the social level, but 'I' as the hub of existence is also an intellectual fall-out, not it's prerequisite. Descartes' "I think ..." sentence only arrived in the fifteenth century. > All that is needed is that the social level and the biological > components are so evolved that they produce some sort of individuality > (and the biological capacity to store information and all the other > nice stuff the human brain does) in which the question of "why" may > occur in - because when this question is asked it is not in itself in > service to any other level then the intellectual. IMO the said neural capacity (storing of past experience and manipulation thereof) was the biological prerequisite for the social development, but more on the 3rd. level when we have agreement on the 4th. > But then, how intellectual understanding evolves from that "why" (and > how and all those questions that doesn't serve anything else but the > intellectual level) can be quite different I think. So, the > intellectual level may take other forms then the classic Greek one, > and doesn't necessarily have to use a S/O thinking, it can be > thinking in totally different terms, terms that inevitably will be > most troublesome for us in our mythos to fully understand, but as > long as those thoughts also only serve to answer the "Quest for > knowledge" - to answer the "Why's" and the "How'" - then it must be > the intellectual level (even if one of the supposed answer were to > say that there is no such thing as a separate individuality.. or > Truth). If intellect is "thinking in totally different terms" its definition becomes thinking itself and this is MIND and SOM has "devoured" the MOQ. No, the 4th. level is thinking along THE S/O PATTERN. Nothing else makes Quality sense. Bodvar 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/
