Sorry for the tardy, Bo. It's summertime and the livin' is busy... On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:50 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Good Man John. > > 11 May thou spaketh > > > What I believe, Bo, is that there has never been any time in human > > history that there has not been intellectual - level thinking. All > > your talk of gods and myths being "social" is just silly. Of course > > the gods and myths are socially reinforced, just like our ideas of > > "substance" and "cause and effect" and other ghosts of reason are also > > socially reinforced through teaching. > > Why "intellectual" when it clearly is intelligence coupled with curiosity > and awe, but I see that you have a hard time understanding the Q- > levels, namely the control of the parent level.. Thus gods, mythological > or mono-theist are all about creating bulwarks against the biological > "barbarians at the gates". A bit tongue-in-cheekish but a stone age > tribe had not the means of creating a police force, consequently had to > refer to the wrath of the gods if the members didn't toe the line. > Well I don't see it that way. First, "biological controls" is a misnomer. Those do occur, but they occur "naturally", as in without intellectual/intelligent manipulations. > > > If you argue the evolutionary development of a human from an ape-like > > ancestor, I'll go along with you. But I'll insist that until that > > ape-like ancestor develops the uniquely human capacity of language > > (not mere communicative grunting, but symbolic manipulation and > > representation) THEN and only then do you have what I term, "a human". > > And that symbolic language IS intellect. All gods and myths arise > > from symbolic representation of reality, and thus all are of 4th > > level, or intellectual thinking. > > I have problems understanding what you object to: the MOQ or my > interpretation I didn't think you preferred DMB's yet about "intellect > =symbolic language" is playing straight into his hand. The Q- > intellectual level occurred when people realized that "language is > symbols in contrast to the what it symbolizes" and moreover "that > thoughts are subjective turning of mental wheels in contrast to the real > world out there" ... this and a million similar subject/object contrasts > comprise the VALUE of the intellectual level. . > > I must make it short, I'm hampered by having to think and have other > chores ... fully tongue in cheek, a great painting career is going down > the drain due to this. > > Bodvar > > PS > I saw in this morning's mail that you sided with DMB, I'm not much > worried by that, your (embarrassing) understanding of the MOQ > automatically places you over there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John Prev: > > > > > The desire to objectify reality in comprehensible terms is the human > > > intellectual impulse, whether you're talking Norse mythologies or > > > Big Bang, it's all intellect coping with reality, Bo. > > > > Bo: > > > > The desire to order existence is Pirsig's "... no one can avoid > > > metaphysics" > > > > > > John Now: > > > > The "desire to order existence" is mine and everybody else's that > > breathes, or Pirsig wouldn't have said "no one" he would have said "I" > > as in "I can't avoid metaphysics". > > > > But this statement about "no one", if true, is therefore further > > evidence for my assertion that all human society forever has > > intellectual guidance of society in the form of the underlying mythos > > which helps them objectify and "get a handle on" their reality. > > > > No one can avoid metaphysics. > > > > Metaphysics is intellectual. > > > > Therefore, no one is non-intellectual. > > > > > > > > Bo: > > > > > > > and IMO the urge to interpret reality coincided with the > > > social level which was the result of biological intelligence > > > reaching the Homo Sapiens plane where "to be/not be" was realized. > > > > > > John: > > > > There's a tricky distinction between "realization of being" and "being > > through realization". I'd say the first is intellectual and the > > second, social. > > > > And I'd put the social realization at the mammalian level, because > > lizards and fish just don't present themselves that way to my > > observation, and it makes logical sense that every self is nurtured > > into existence by other - mothering. Without which, we'd probably > > think more like lizards. > > > > > > > > > > Bo: > > > > > > > During the > > > social era countless interpretations were conceived, from the > > > so-called animism over the various mythologies to the most refined > > > one, Semitic monotheism, but all were variations over - what to call > > > it - Moral maybe. > > > > > > > > John: > > > > See, you're really confused. "Countless interpretations being > > conceived" is a supremely intellectual activity. > > > > Let us define intellect from the handiest dictionary at the moment> > > > > in·tel·lect > > ** > > ** > > *a. * The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and > > understanding. *b. * The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. > > > > > > > > There. "Abstractly" I dunno profound, but I understand abstract. > > > > In an abstract way... :-) > > > > But the question, unkle, is do you? > > > > This interpretation urge or desire rose to a new level with SOM - to > > the > intellectual level in my well known opinion - where all moral > > > explanations were deemed superstition and subjective make-believe > > > and the detached - objective - scientific approach was introduced. In > > > other words "to order existence" is not "to objectify it". The > > ordering > began with the social level, but reached a new and improved > > stage > with the intellectual level. Both requires intelligence and > > that of the IQ > variations among the Stone Agers was no less than > > among ourselves. > > > Bodvar > > Well enough to chew on for one quick > > lunchtime. I also must cook if I wish to eat! > > > > But in order to create order, the patterns must first be objectified. > > All objects are only defined patterns in an overall system of order. > > Therefore, ordering and objectifying are, if not synonomous, at least > > metaphysically indistinguishable and I'm thinking you'd be well served > > to come to K class with me some time for a refresher course or two! > > > > hungry 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/md/archives.html > > > > > > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
