[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[X Acto]

----- Original Message ----
From: KAYE PALM-LEIS <mkpalm at wildblue.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Wed, January 6, 2010 9:03:41 PM
Subject: [MD] Intellect's Symposium
Mati:
To all,
Hmmm.....  if there was a sainthood for tolerance Bodvar would get my
nomination. 

Ron:
Bo has no tolerence for anyone elses views which contradict his own
what he has is blind persistence of his own views and beliefs which he
asserts at every opportunity. I think you confuse the two.

Mati:
 That being said a friend recently was getting rid of some
books and I pick up Plato's "Symposium".  For those not familiar with
it, it is a collection of speechless on love at a dinner party.  Given
it's time and context before for Aristotle I was interested in the
manner in which they presented the topic.  Again given the day there
was some pretty sophicated discussions that some could easily suggest
is very reflective and evidence of intellect.  Though the discussion
is very sophisticated for its time, articulating and presenting a
various point of views, which some might suggest are hallmarks of
intellect, I would suggest intellect is not present in at least in the
context or actual presentation of this collection of speeches.

Ron:
Read all of Platos works and you would find the same, the deconstruction
 of what we think we "know" discourses on the meaning of terms.

Mati:
I realize it seems to some totally nuts that a concept and value such
as intellect did not magically assert itself until Aristotle's wrestle
with the issue of reality and gives us the s/o split, however the act
of consciously thinking, which some of you have proposed as intellect,
is as old as the dawn of mankind. 

Ron: 
Thats because the distinction lies in the cultural meaning and
understanding of the term. The s/o split is an assumption drawn
from Aristotles work "Physics" by the thinkers of the middle ages
during the decline of the Roman empire. "metaphysics"
Aristotles lecture notes on first philosophy, his theory of meaning,
is based on the syllogism in the face of a relativistic flux of
experience.
"Intellect" in the context of general human experience as a species
is as old as the dawn of mankind, infact, it's the distiguishing
characteristic that seperates our species from others. "Intellect"
defines us as what we recognize as distinctly human.


Mati:
I will share from Pirsig letter to
Paul Turner....

"There has been a tendency to extend the meaning of "social" down into
the biological with the assertion that, for example, ants are social,
but I have argued that this extends the meaning to a point where it is
useless for classification. I said that even atoms can be called
societies of electrons and protons. And since everything is thus
social, why even have the word? I think the same happens to the term,
"intellectual," when one extends it much before the Ancient Greeks.*
If one extends the term intellectual to include primitive cultures
just because they are thinking about things, why stop there? How about
chimpanzees? Don't they think? How about earthworms? Don't they make
conscious decisions? How about bacteria responding to light and
darkness? How about chemicals responding to light and darkness? Our
intellectual level is broadening to a point where it is losing all its
meaning. You have to cut it off somewhere,......
Snipppppppp.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reason I seemed to snip so vigorously is that was in totally
agreement with Pirsig says here until he shares his definition of
intellect in which my head crashes into the keyboard with frustration.
His definition does more narrowly defines intellect than "thinking" or
"Thinking about thinking".  He says, ..... " and it seems to me the
greatest meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is
confined to the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no
corresponding particular experience and which behave according to
rules of their own."

I truly admired MoQ for it's simplicity and then Pirsig gives us this.
Based on this definition we can use some of the earliest "languages"
even the old testament could meet this criteria. Eventhough just a
paragraph earlier Pirsig states, " But if one studies the early books
of the Bible or if one studies the sayings of primitive tribes today,
the intellectual level is conspicuously absent."  Lets look at the
first three words of the old testement, "In the Begining..."  The
language is a "skill manipulation of abstract symbols" of a concept
("the Beginning") to define a reality that understands time/space
continuum, a beginning / end (according to rules of their own)"  If
this isn't your cup of tea various abstract mathematical concepts
existed long before the ancient Greeks that could meet this criteria,
heck by this criteria you could argue that hmmmm..... "just thinking"
could meet this criteria.  I have long admired MoQ for it's simplicity
however in this single definition that Pirsig offer it seem to
undermine everything that he has achieved with MoQ.

Ron:
I think the key lies in the Pragmatic statement:
"the greatest meaning that may be given"
"meaning".....to the concept of the intellectual level.
Which he asserts, is the origin of the meanings our
culture holds today. 

Mati:
I will share again that with the ancient Greeks something special
happened.  They questioned reality as never before.  Thales,
Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Anaxagoras and others
questioned the nature of reality.  They experimented with abstract
ideas that tried to explain the world/reality as never before.
Ron:
This is quite an assumption, they are the only written records
which our culture has found and they are rather limited
who knows what was held in the library of alexandria that did
not survive. Who knows what intellectual achievements the ancients
held... certainly not you or any of us.

Mati:
  They
wanted to understand the world to answer questions the gods/social
level had no answers for.  They were trying to take thinking to the
next level.  It is only when the advent of the s/o split that perhaps
for the first time in history that understanding the world was not
beholden to the social level.  So much of Plato's Symposium was
beholden to the social level, in fact I am hard pressed to find where
it is not.  All thinking before the s/o split was either beholden or
arrested to the social level.  Had the Symposium had taken place, let
say, 200 years later it wouldn't have been presented in a manner that
would be quiet different because of the s/o split and how the reality,
which love exists, would be viewed.  Actually in some respects I guess
the new symposium would have not been as entertaining as the old one.

Ron:
If you and Bodvar actually read the complete works of Plato
and Aristotles metaphysics, you may actually gain some insight
into the pile of generalized assumptions you are making about their work.

The s/o split was created over thousands of years of misinterpretaion
and assumptions which manifested in 19th century victorian concepts.

Mati:
Maybe it time for a new symposium!  Heck, I will turn my backyard into
a stately affair with all the fixins of a great feast and endless
drink and invite you all over.  I propose that the topic is intellect.
Hmmm.... perhaps I should consult with my wife first. :-)

Ron:
I suggest we all become alittle bit more well read on the subject if fist fights
are to be avoided.

I'll bring the wine



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/