Mati: Well I am glad we are in half agreement, but I am unaware in the
Eastern Culture in the Historical period of 500 B.C. (give or take a hundred
years) that provide a different form of intellect that broke away from the
social level as decisive as the SOM. As I noted in my post to Ian, if you
observe modern day research methologies in the eastern cultures they likely
teather themselves to the S/O split (SOM) because, I believe, because it was
the most effective means to define reality in a research environment. If
the Eastern philosophical tradition was able to define reality in a more
effective means I would suggest that would be a) incorporated already or b)
displaced SOM or c) we would be studying them in the western world.
Chris: This also fits together with my assertion that the birth of the
intellectual level only could come when social structures had evolved into
such complexity and in combination with the biological development - that a
notion of an "I" was born. This "I" is then the vessel of the intellectual
level - it cannot exist without it - because only in a separate "I" can the
questions that the intellectual level provide be asked.
Furthermore, it seems as though S/O thinking is something of a unavoidable
result of this - the more the intellectual level breaks free from the social
one, the more it moves toward s/o thinking. So perhaps S/O thinking is the
inescapable static pattern - A Intellectual Pattern of Value - created, as
it were, by this drive for understanding that was born out of the social
level - so perhaps that drive (that is quite hard to define) is the more
dynamic aspect of it.
I really don't know.
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/
