Steve, Thanks for making the point about "aping". I wanted to point out the same. Not only do chimps use rudimentary tools, but they definitely pass on their tool-making-using techniques to their group. Plainly then, this is high-quality social patterns passed on through rudimentary culture.
But language, in the form of objectifying the process, writing it down and passing it on, that's uniquely human and I'd say the most likely place to signify "intellect". My one clarification is in seeing intellect as the "code of art" for the 4th level, rather than the whole level. That is, philosophies, systems of thought and ideas about reality are all the patterns of which the 4th level is comprised, and intellect is the artform which mediates and creates these patterns. > > But these sorts of issues -- do animals have social patterns? when did > the first social or intellectual pattern emerge? -- are not so > important as understanding what intellectual value is and what social > value is. Intellectual quality is fairly simple since the word "truth" > usually sums up pretty well what is usually meant. If you can't > qualify a pattern as either true or false or as having to do with > truth, it probably isn't an intellectual pattern. > > Excellent. I agree wholeheartedly. John 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/
