[MD] What Bo Doesn't Get

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Andre:

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:53 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve to Andre:
> I think the mythos is best associated with social patterns.
>
> Krimel to Andre:
> Both mythos and logos are purely parts of the intellectual level.
>
> Andre:
> Hi Steve, Krimel. Thank you both for taking the time to respond to my post.
>
> I do not intend, by highlighting these 2 views above that there is no
> agreement between the 2 points of view. Can I suggest that, keeping
> the Pirsig quote Steve mentioned ( about the cave man... social
> patterns, rituals...from these may emerge intellectual patterns) in
> mind... that those parts of the mythos handed down to us, either in
> written,spoken or other artistic form 'made it' into the intellectual
> level?


Steve:
Good question.

One type of pattern cannot turn into another type of pattern.
Intellectual patterns don't become social patterns when they are
commonly accepted any more than hunger becomes an inorganic pattern
based on the fact that all animals get hungry.

An intellectual pattern is a pattern of thought. It is a habit of
mind. A series of deductions or inductions such as applying the
transitive property to reason from one case to another. They are
rationales used to justify behavior. Meanwhile a social pattern is
completely different sort of thing. These include behaviors (not
patterns of thought though we might think of thought as behavior) that
are not hardwired in our DNA but are instead passed on through
unconscious copying of behavior such as personalities, mores and
folkways, social roles and ranks as well as institutions such as
governments and schools. Participation in social patterns may or may
not be well justified, but the distinction is clear if you keep the
idea that the nonhardwired behavior is a social pattern while the
justification for that behavior (whether convincing or not) is an
intellectual pattern.

Best,
Steve