Mary, Maybe the difficulty is the Intellectual pattern that states objects are not objects, but patterns of value: SOM wiped out, end of story.
Marsha On Jul 24, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Mary wrote: > Arlo and dmb are struggling with a set of platypi below due to an incorrect > definition of the Intellectual Level. The unsolvable questions they are > asking can be dissolved if it is understood that the Intellectual Level is > not brains, smarts, intellect, or degree of intelligence. Nor is it a > bucket where you put thoughts, premises, ideas, or 'thinking itself'. If > instead of this, you define the Intellectual Level as a pattern of values > which value subject-object logic and deny the primacy of value in the > Universe, then all these questions go away, or become moot, or are solved, > etc. > > Best, > Mary > >> 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. >> > [Andy] >> 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. >> > [Andy] >> You think intellect dominates society in any part of this world right >> now? I think you're fooling yourself. >> >> Mumbling in a puddle of piss, >> 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 > > 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
