Hello Mati, I too have a problem with all definitions of the Intellectual level I have heard. For me, it is nothing more than an attitude allowing one to question the strictures of the Social level, and thus allow for more creative thinking. There was plenty of thinking going on before the Greeks, as there is plenty of it going on in the Social level today (religion and politics). I have a problem with Bo's definition as the S/O split. To me, this is very fundamental. Doesn't a dog see itself as separate from its master? The S/O split is a byproduct of the ego. If I am "I" and you are "you", then we have an automatic S/O split right there. The only types of brains that would not see the world this way are those that do not have a personal consciousness, right?
- Mary The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of KAYE PALM-LEIS Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:04 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [MD] Intellect's Symposium To all, Hmmm..... if there was a sainthood for tolerance Bodvar would get my nomination. That being said a friend recently was getting rid of some books and I pick up Plato's "Symposium". For those not familiar with it, it is a collection of speechless on love at a dinner party. Given it's time and context before for Aristotle I was interested in the manner in which they presented the topic. Again given the day there was some pretty sophicated discussions that some could easily suggest is very reflective and evidence of intellect. Though the discussion is very sophisticated for its time, articulating and presenting a various point of views, which some might suggest are hallmarks of intellect, I would suggest intellect is not present in at least in the context or actual presentation of this collection of speeches. I realize it seems to some totally nuts that a concept and value such as intellect did not magically assert itself until Aristotle's wrestle with the issue of reality and gives us the s/o split, however the act of consciously thinking, which some of you have proposed as intellect, is as old as the dawn of mankind. I will share from Pirsig letter to Paul Turner.... "There has been a tendency to extend the meaning of "social" down into the biological with the assertion that, for example, ants are social, but I have argued that this extends the meaning to a point where it is useless for classification. I said that even atoms can be called societies of electrons and protons. And since everything is thus social, why even have the word? I think the same happens to the term, "intellectual," when one extends it much before the Ancient Greeks.* If one extends the term intellectual to include primitive cultures just because they are thinking about things, why stop there? How about chimpanzees? Don't they think? How about earthworms? Don't they make conscious decisions? How about bacteria responding to light and darkness? How about chemicals responding to light and darkness? Our intellectual level is broadening to a point where it is losing all its meaning. You have to cut it off somewhere,...... Snipppppppp.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The reason I seemed to snip so vigorously is that was in totally agreement with Pirsig says here until he shares his definition of intellect in which my head crashes into the keyboard with frustration. His definition does more narrowly defines intellect than "thinking" or "Thinking about thinking". He says, ..... " and it seems to me the greatest meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is confined to the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no corresponding particular experience and which behave according to rules of their own." I truly admired MoQ for it's simplicity and then Pirsig gives us this. Based on this definition we can use some of the earliest "languages" even the old testament could meet this criteria. Eventhough just a paragraph earlier Pirsig states, " But if one studies the early books of the Bible or if one studies the sayings of primitive tribes today, the intellectual level is conspicuously absent." Lets look at the first three words of the old testement, "In the Begining..." The language is a "skill manipulation of abstract symbols" of a concept ("the Beginning") to define a reality that understands time/space continuum, a beginning / end (according to rules of their own)" If this isn't your cup of tea various abstract mathematical concepts existed long before the ancient Greeks that could meet this criteria, heck by this criteria you could argue that hmmmm..... "just thinking" could meet this criteria. I have long admired MoQ for it's simplicity however in this single definition that Pirsig offer it seem to undermine everything that he has achieved with MoQ. I will share again that with the ancient Greeks something special happened. They questioned reality as never before. Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Anaxagoras and others questioned the nature of reality. They experimented with abstract ideas that tried to explain the world/reality as never before. They wanted to understand the world to answer questions the gods/social level had no answers for. They were trying to take thinking to the next level. It is only when the advent of the s/o split that perhaps for the first time in history that understanding the world was not beholden to the social level. So much of Plato's Symposium was beholden to the social level, in fact I am hard pressed to find where it is not. All thinking before the s/o split was either beholden or arrested to the social level. Had the Symposium had taken place, let say, 200 years later it wouldn't have been presented in a manner that would be quiet different because of the s/o split and how the reality, which love exists, would be viewed. Actually in some respects I guess the new symposium would have not been as entertaining as the old one. Maybe it time for a new symposium! Heck, I will turn my backyard into a stately affair with all the fixins of a great feast and endless drink and invite you all over. I propose that the topic is intellect. Hmmm.... perhaps I should consult with my wife first. :-) Respectfully, Mati 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/ 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/
