[Mary] What we have here is a failure to communicate. My next favorite movie quote (totally irrelevant), "I love the smell of napalm in the morning."
I take it you do not see the levels as a collection of patterns of value? Quick, dirty example of how I see it. A minister values social conformity and is offended by any ideas that threaten to undermine faith (such as evolution). A scientist values empirical research, and is offended by any ideas that threaten that (such as religion). Both use language. Both think. One represents the Social Level and one the Intellectual. I take it you disagree? [Krimel] I do see a level as a collection of patterns of value. I think the intellectual level is a collection of intellectual patterns. A pattern, to be a pattern, must have extension in time. It must persist. It is not just an idea or a thought that flits through someone's mind. When a minister avoids, shuns or banishes from the congregation, someone for their ideas or actions, that might be a social pattern but when the preacher sermonizes about deviant social patterns, he does so using intellectual patterns. In speaking he may be performing a social pattern but what he says, regardless of the topic, is an intellectual pattern. A geologist a talks about rocks does she employ inorganic patterns to do so. Empirically yours, Mary -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Krimel Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 3:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Intellect's Symposium [Mary] >Mati: And I quote Pirsig...." 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." Pirsig's letter to the Apostle Paul - or was it The Turner Diaries?, re the Intellectual Level: "the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no corresponding particular experience and which behave according to rules of their own." Wouldn't it have been best for Pirsig to just leave well enough alone with the first statement? The second brings obfuscation and changes the intent of the first entirely, looks like. [Krimel] Actually, we would all be better served by omitting the first statement. The second is almost a textbook definition of language. Language is the means by which we humans express and preserve our thoughts. [Mary] To clarify the Intellectual level, would it be useful to explain what exactly it is that is missing in the early books of Bible? [Krimel] In the first statement Pirsig seems be channeling Julian Jaynes' "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." Jaynes uses the same argument but he is talking about conscious self awareness NOT "intellect". Jaynes argues that before about 3000 years ago people did not think for themselves, they heard voices in their heads. 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/ 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/
