[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[Krimel]

> [Krimel]
> I find it incredible that any one would think that a particular culture
> could spin off its own MoQ level. Why are we calling it the intellectual
> level? Why not call it the Greek level. This would free us to talk about 
> the Chinese level or the Aztec level. Maybe individuals should be allowed 
> to play and we could talk about the Newton level or the Einstein level...

[Mati:]
But your definition doesn't give a basis for a
pattern of intellect. Personally I don't care about which culture was
responsible for creating the basis of intellect.  However I think
there is general agreement that the Greeks and in particular Aristotle
provided us SOM.  

[Krimel]
I think you are confusing the classification of the levels with the
classification of their content. Cave paints, burial and stone tools are all
evidence of the presence of thinking. What is more, they are evidence of
shared thought. We can look at the evolution of stone tools and the
invention and evolution of pottery and see similar evidence of shared ideas.
We can see how innovation and changes in methods are introduces and spread
around geographically.

Intellectual patterns are not thoughts, they are shared thoughts. When
Grampa Uga sat around the campfire spinning tales about the Great Bear in
the sky, his story was an intellectual pattern. It may have served a social
function but it was an intellectual pattern. 

When Euclid consolidated mathematical thinking into "The Element" the work
he produced was an intellectual pattern. It is easy to see that "The
Elements" is a different from Grampa Uga's sky bear story. But they are both
intellectual patterns just as a bronze tip is different from a stone point.
But all four, the book, the tale, the tip and point are all intellectual
patterns and they are all part of the intellectual level.

[Mati:]
It was a basis from which the domination of social level had the capacity to
end.  

[Krimel]
OK, look this "domination of social level" is not going to end. Not now, not
ever. We are primates. Social patterns are encoded in our DNA. We may be
able to intellectually identify our social patterns and try to modify them
intelligently. But the best we can do is exchange one set of social patterns
for another.

[Mati:]
>From what I have been able to observe each modern culture has adopted the
spoils of SOM, such as scientific achievements.  

[Krimel]
Look around the world and you will find that every primitive culture had
arrowheads. SOM is an intellectual tool. Like tools of every stripe, people
use it because, it produces desirable results; just like they hang pictures
from the gallery in their homes because, the scenes depicted work for them.
But paintings and tools are intellectual patterns regardless of the function
they serve.

[Mati;}
What ZAMM and Lila shows us is that there hasn't been much change in the
metaphysical basis for much of what we understand in the world around us.

[Krimel]
What ZMM and Lila show us is that like inorganic, biological and social
patterns, intellectual patterns evolve.
  
[Mati:]
MoQ is perhaps the first major metaphysical breakthrough in 2500 years, time
will tell.

[Krimel]
The MoQ is merely a restatement and refinement of Taoism which has been
around for 2500 years. I think the clock has spoken.