Ham
11 March you said:
after I had said to Andre:
> > The 4th. level is NOT the thinking realm that SOM's
> > "intellect" term indicates, but the Subject/Object distinction
> > (in this context S=conceptual/ O=non-conceptual).
> In the interest of trying (still) to comprehend your epistemology, I
> need more clarification.
An inside-out turn of the old epistemology isn't easily understood.
> Are you saying that intellect is the ability to distinguish the
> entities, objects or patterns of experience, or that it is only the
> ability to separate subject from object (as in the SOM duality)? ...
I know you don't accept the the level matrix and dislike history
lessons, but as I tried to convey in the follow-up post to Andre (that
must read to understand what I mean by "intelligence") there was
a "social" time when there was no inner/outer border, when
(according to Julian Jaynes people perceived their "language-
conveyed thoughts" to be the gods speaking to them. Then came
the "intellectual age" when language/thoughts became subjective.
> If the former is what you mean ....,
In the aforesaid "social age" people surely knew themselves as
separate persons different from other persons, had separate
names, families, property, rank ...everything, but their "intelligence"
was social I know no better way to formulate it. NB "social" not in
our bland "caring for people" but caring for the common reality or
mythology".
> then it is consistent with what I call "intellection" which is applied
> to value-sensibility to "actualize" or construct differentiated
> existence.
I leave it to you to compare notes.
> If it's only dividing the subject from its objects, I would suggest you
> really mean "self-awareness" or subjective cognizance, since everything
> else is objective.
Dividing self from other is the most basic biological quality - what
immune systems are based on - so that has nothing to do with the
subject/object issue. However, the "intelligence" I spoke about to
Andre (that began at some complex neural, brain) has nothing to
do with consciousness - with mind - but is the biological
prerequisite for intellect's mind/matter divide.
With the Homo Sapiens neocortex brain the "hardware" was
immensely improved. To flaunt my little knowledge, RAM and most
of all "chache" capacity (where retrieved memory can be re-
enacted and the re-arranged) increased immensely. The individual
could "imagine" future scenarios, f.ex. of own non-existence (it's
no issue here, but IMO the realization of death and life beyond was
what triggered the Q-social development, but let that the rest.)
> As you know, I regard the primary division (Sensibility/Otherness) as
> pre-intellectual, in the same way that Pirsig considers Quality to be
> pre-intellectual. Sensibility is individuated in the process of
> gestation, so that a sense of self is developed at birth, allowing the
> infant to acquire a sense of otherness from post-natal experience.
> Intellection comes much later with the ability to form concepts.
"Sensibility" is awareness of other people's emotions -
empathy...no? so in moqish it sounds like social value, but
"otherness"?? "Sense of self" sounds like self-consciousness, but
as said all organisms know self from other without any
"consciousness". Once this term is introduced the Quality
approach is impossible. Let me continue.
Even if Q-evolution had reached the social stage and language
had enhanced intelligence ("thoughts" become silent language)
any notion of the language-thinking being abstractions was absent
As I once tried to tell you, ancient texts do not convey any self-
awareness, nothing about "I think" .. etc.
Then fast forward to ZAMM and the early Greek thinkers. when the
mythological god-man bond began to weaken, or was weakened
by them starting to look for principles beyond this reality. Truth the
greatest principle that rose above what just seemed to be. Further
development of this budding SOM when "language-conveyed
thoughts" became subjective reflections of reality., then the idealist
branch of SOM where everything is ideas or thoughts ....and the
rest is history.
> If you disagree with this timeline, how would you chronicle it? Thanks,
> again, Bo. We'll give it another try.
I trust you to read from this if we have something in common.
Bo
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/
