[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[KAYE PALM-LEIS]

John and others,

> Chiming in here at the Intellectual symposium,  arguing about when
> intellectual ability arises or arose in society is an endlessly fascinating
> debate.  Also where it arises in primate physiology.  Fascinating.  One
> which I hope continues to get tossed back and forth in the future.

Mati: If our past history is any is any indicator there is a lot of
tossing yet to come.

> However, for the sake of clarity in the MoQ, I really wish the the term
> "intellectual" was dropped from the 4th level.  The 4th level is not
> composed of intellect.

Mati: The issue is semantics, intellect, intellectual, intelligence
all have separate meaning.  They even get more tangled as we discuss
"intellect" as a forth value.  And then on top of that we have SOM's
interpretation of each of these concepts which turns everything into a
never ending game of chase the tail.

>The 4th level is composed of intellectual patterns.
> Philosophy and metaphysics which are created by the intellectual abilities
> of humankind.  It is these intellectual patterns, these philosophies, which
> grow, evolve and develop, with a life and growth of their own, independent
> of the individuals who contribute or assent to their evolution, that make up
> the "substance" of the 4th level.  I've proposed intellect itself as the
> "code of art" .... snip

Mati: If you are looking for clarity "code of art" become cryptic in
nature and tells us very little about the pattern.  However you point
is well taken because philosophy in particular metaphysics was for the
first time and independent theme that wasn't beholden to the social
level with the advent of SOM.

> which mediates between these philosophies, but so far this
> idea has generated no enthusiastic response and I'm not one to keep pushing
> an idea that fails to meet social acceptability.
> Even if it is a damn good one.

Mati: Like everything in life you need to be true to what you believe.
A good idea is worth fighting for even the one that might fail to meet
social acceptability. Heck Bodvar is a shining example of this.

> Pirsig says the development of the 4th can be intuited from the evolution
> and development of the 3rd, and he plainly points out how a social pattern,
> such as a city, devours individuals in its sustenance and growth.
> Therefore, it makes very little sense to go back to poking into individual
> intellectual ability when trying to describe what is happening on the 4th
> level.
>
> I've proposed many times calling the 4th level "the Metaphysical" or the
> "philosophical" to avoid this confusion between intellect and intelligence.

Mati: Again I am very sympathetic to the issue of semantics and
certainly the "metaphysical" level could be a contender.  But I still
think that "intellect" is probably the best we have to go on because
it embodies the concept of the rational over the social, but more
importantly we can examine the basis by which the rational dominated
the social we can trace it specifically to the the s/o divide which is
basis when the rational patterns became their own entity not beholden
to the social level.

> And now, back to you.  Mati, tell your wife thanks for the chips and the
> drinks.

Mati: The weather outside is snowy and cold at -4 F. At least I can
guarantee some ice cold beer. :-)
All the best,
Mati