I'm catching up on a week's worth of posts, so I apologize if the next post I haven't read yet already says all this.
Can the difference between the Social and Intellectual levels be characterized by what they are opposed to? Could the Social level be defined as a set of patterns of value designed to dominate the urgings of the Biological level? Remember the Victorians? To me, they were the archetype of the Social level. They had brains identical to ours, capable of the same cognitive reasoning as our own, but chose to direct it toward a set of goals designed to reign in the basic human biological desires for sex, drugs, and rock and roll. That was their mission. The Intellectual level, on the other hand, could be defined as a set of patterns of value designed to overcome the strictures of the Social level. Nothing about the workings of the brain have changed. I am sure there were people engaged in Intellectual level patterns of value during the Victorian era, for instance, but they were not of sufficient number to reach critical mass and latch the Intellectual level into a new POV all it's own. When you think about it, there's a kind of odd kinship between the Biological and Intellectual levels too. Both are opposed to Social level restrictions - just coming at it from different directions. The Biological level says the Social level is bad because it prevents you from doing what feels good. The Intellectual level says the Social level is bad because it prevents you from asking questions. Just a thought, Mary The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. 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/
