[MD] What Bo Doesn't Get

[Krimel]

Andre:
Hi Steve (thanks for the reference) and Krimel:
If Pirsig suggests that intellectual patterns are found existing after
the beginning of history ( as I understand this; the time when people
began to record things in writing?...most of which evidence has not
survived of course) then who am I to argue? If this is the MoQ
understanding then so be it...and it does open up a different
understanding for me (which is great!).

[Krimel]
I was perfectly willing to throw Pirsig under the bus on this one but thanks
to Steve for rescuing him. I still think you are still missing the point.
Intellectual patterns, in fact the intellectual "level," almost assuredly
existed before the beginning of history. Cave paintings, stone tools and
burials are all prehistoric and point to an active and thriving intellectual
level. People accumulated and shared their experiences in the world long
before writing.

[Andre]
These rituals gave expression to the ideas people had about the world
around (and above) them. I am not sure of whether to call  this
'symbolic'. I think it is, because the rituals were intended to be an
actual enactment of how they, immediately apprehended (to use
Northrop's expression) the universe. However, through these ritual
displays (art) they did symbolise their understanding of the workings
of the entire universe. (as below-so above, as above-so below)

[Krimel]
This symbolic shared understanding IS the intellectual level. At this stage
of its development we can only speculate about its form and function. We
lack the tools and knowledge to decode it precisely. But once folks started
writing it down, it assumed a more static and permanent form and we have a
bit more to talk about.

[Andre]
It seems to me that Bodvar strongly identifies with intellect being
the logos (and the mythos, social) and that this intellect has won out
over the mythos (which, according to this [MoQ] reasoning it must,
because it is a higher level of evolution).

[Krimel]
Both mythos and logos are purely parts of the intellectual level. They are
just different approaches and not different in kind. In fact I think the
idea of Mythos preceding Logos is backwards. Mythos is the corpse of
discarded Logos. 

[Andre]
Phaedrus makes it very explicit that with Aristotle our scientific
understanding of reality was born. A powerfully argued logos designed
to overthrow the mythos.... But the mythos has never been overthrown.

[Krimel]
Here is a case in point. Aristotle was not arguing Logos over Mythos. He was
presenting an intellectual argument designed to counter and replace a
previous intellectual construction. Some are tempted to call the older
argument "mythos". The chief difference between them is not their
intellectual character but that the older symbolic system seems fuzzier and
less precise that what Aristotle presented. As Aristotle's style won out,
the older mode became attractive purely for its emotional appeal. When
symbols are fuzzy enough they must mean something to someone.