On Jul 18, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Andy Skelton wrote: > Arlo to dmb: >> Are you suggesting that should a priest use mathematics, the calculations >> are "social"? Is "2+2=4" a social pattern if it is used to count sheep in >> the field, but an intellectual pattern in a modern classroom? > > dmb to Arlo: >> Well, not exactly. But when kids are learning how to add in the modern >> classroom they are introduced to the concept in very concrete terms. A math >> text book at that level might even have a picture of two pairs of sheep, for >> example, when introducing the concept. This developmental process probably >> recapitulates the evolutionary process as a whole. So, what I'm saying is >> just that math was born in a practical, concrete situation and was simply a >> matter of counting things like sheep, cows, days, slaves, soldiers, taxes >> and the like. Some of the oldest written records, in fact, calculate >> portions of beer per slave per day. This takes intelligence and the use of >> symbols but it is relatively concrete or rather it's not very abstract. > > Counting sheep by scratching lines in the sand is a total abstraction > of concrete thing. It's not a little of this, a little of that. The > lines in the sand have no value but in the mind where they represent > something. Even without numerals and arithmetic it's pure abstraction. > > I have no position on whether this gets them the "intellect" > distinction. I'm not going to get into what you two are doing, which > is arguing over which algorithm is best for sorting sand. You aren't > proposing to do anything with the piles except stamp your name on > them. It just squeezes all the value out of the metaphysics to treat > it this way. > > None of us ever in our lives complete the work of defining any one of > the levels. It is a fool's errand. No, I'm not calling you foolish > personally. Only your current activity. Don't recant or apologize; the > social ledger need not balance here. I just hope you find a better way > to apply your intellect. > > To properly condemn what you're doing I feel I should name it. So I'll > call it Definism. I don't know what to call my position. > > Subsequently, I looked up Definism and found the word already in use. > It fits well enough. > > Arlo to dmb: >> ... I am not suggesting that intellect dominated the social worlds of these >> ancient cultures, far from it. Its obvious that social patterns were in >> control, but I think in these calculations we see the appearance of newly >> emerging intellectual patterns. > > dmb to Arlo: >> Yea, something like that. Maybe they were the direct precursors. I mean, it >> seems like we still live with both levels and it's easy to see how one grew >> out of the other. Alchemy and chemistry, astrology and astronomy, numerology >> and mathematics, ritual calendars and scientific time, the soul and the >> self, etc.. And I think this general shift has everything to do an increased >> power of abstraction. The idea that intellectual values only recently came >> to dominate and are still being resisted by neo-Victorian reactionaries >> shows, I think, that we are still living with both. I mean, in some sense >> you can see how ancient Babylonians thought by looking at social level >> people in our own time. It wasn't that long ago, you know? It must have been >> something like a fundamentalist's mind. > > You think intellect dominates society in any part of this world right > now? I think you're fooling yourself.
Marsha: Oh it does, but it is very sick, and has no heart for value... Yea for Andy!!! ___ 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
