Ron and All
On 3 Apr. you addressed me:
> Perhaps I do not understand the genesis of this argument. You called
> for thoughts about The origin of intellect. You poo-pooed the large
> majority of the responses on basis of "Mystic rubbish". Pirsig divides
> reality into 4 levels inorganic, biological, social and intellectual.
> All of which work on the concept of "value". You seem to be making the
> argument that Intellect came before social and that social is a result
> of intellect that it was reasoned That gathering in societies was
> valued more than individual survival.
Are you sure I am the target here, it looks distinctly like Magnus'
about an intellectual level before the social level. It would have
been useful with a quote of the points in question, at least I am
strongly opposed to any shuffling around of the level sequence.
> The question being Then is: are
> human beings social creatures by instinct or by intellect? When
> pavlovs dog Begins to salivate at the sound of a bell is the dog
> intellectualizing on the biological level? Is adaptation, biological
> intellect?
Of course, this reaction isn't intellectual, it need not be dogs,
humans may salivate too from sights and sounds too, it's our
biology kicking in.
> Hell, Pirsig eludes to intellect when he makes the
> statement That molecules "prefer" the patterns they assume suggesting
> that intellect of some sort even at The inorganic level. One
> may even go as far as equating value with intellect in this regard. So
> what is your take on this Bo, at the risk of you handing my head back
> to me on a platter.
No risk for heads on platters, as said I think Magnus is the guilty
one here. BTW I have to disengage myself from this company for
a while due to personal matters.
Bye.
Bo
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/
