My theory: I think the line is blurred as to when intellectual pattern began, but feel that it began when people began teaching other people skills. I think several things came into play to form the intellectual level: 1) Language was developed 2) knowledge was recognized in the form of memory 3) Written Language developed
The intellectual level began when the social level realized that they could overcome the "memory barrier" of the biological level (death) by passing skills to other generations via language. The limitation of the biological level is that memory is only passed at via DNA. The need came through the social level to share survival skills to future generations. The first way of doing this was through spoken language, but the real innovation came when written word was created. For the first time there was a way to create lasting memory that social level could use that circumvented the biological level. I believe this was the beginning of the intellectual level. As far as religions are concerned, there would be no religion if death did not exist. I think that the MoQ allows for religion, but I think that it clearly shows the division of religion and the "Church of Science" IMO however, MoQ opens the door for "religion" in the arguments around Quantum physics and in the whole concept of "Quality" as the driving force in everything. The problem that I see is everybody wants to use the same stale aruguments to prove something that is out of the realm of proof at this point. Interestingly, perhaps the first intellectual acheivement allowed the social level to circumvent death, but it is the social level is still attempting to overcome death via religion. To me, MoQ shows that every thing returns to patterns of energy...if not one pattern then another. Bruce Underwood ---------------------------------------- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:19:19 +0100 > Subject: Re: [MD] The MOQ and religions. > > Hi Steve > > In my posting frenzy > > 22 Dec. u wrote to Matt: > > Who had written (I believe): >>> For instance, if social patterns are "unconscious copying >>> of behavior" and intellectual patterns "unconscious >>> copying of rationales of behavior, then does this suggest >>> that intellectual patterns might usurp our behavior >>> entirely if we were to become entirely guided by >>> rationales of behavior? Or does the "unconscious" bit >>> signify a trait we are unlikely to shake, and therefore such >>> a dream (well into its third millennium) equally unlikely? > > "Unconscious copying"? My foot! There is no consciousness in the > MOQ. > > Steve: >> I agree with Pirsig that social patterns evolved prior to intellectual >> patterns. I just don't think that picking a moment in time for the >> occurence of the first intellectual pattern is important especially >> since this same evolution of patterns occurs every day as biological >> babies begin to participate in social patterns and later begin to >> participate in intellectual patterns. I also think that if we all >> agree that the first intellectual pattern occurred on such and such a >> date, we would still have little idea about what is meant by a social >> pattern as opposed to an intellectual pattern which was Mary's >> original question. > > What about the event described in ZAMM as SOM emerging from the > Aretê past, isn't this a pretty convincing "candidate for the occurrence > of the intellectual level from the social ditto? A "moment in time" > depends, this transition definitely did not happen overnight, Western > philosophy history often begins with Thales (585 BC) but there may > have been a whole string of thinkers of whom the earliest began to > doubt the Greek mythological-social past. We know from Homer's > "Iliad" that it describes the said past, but then no one is sure when he > lived, maybe it was his longing for a the good old days. > > Bodvar > > > PS > This is the Western "intellect", regarding the Oriental ditto I think Pirsig > (in the PT letter) is just right about the Vedic-Upanishad transition > describes it well .... except for this being non-S/O which is plain > impossible, philosophy IS a search for objective truth. However, it did > not expand into a SOM "over there". > > > > > > > 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/ 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/
