[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[Mary]

Hello, Mati, Krimel, Steve, X Acto, Bo, Marsha, John, Platt, Arlo et al,

>Mati: And I quote Pirsig...."  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."

Pirsig's letter to the Apostle Paul - or was it The Turner Diaries?, re the
Intellectual Level: "the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have
no corresponding particular experience and which behave according to rules
of their own."

Wouldn't it have been best for Pirsig to just leave well enough alone with
the first statement?  The second brings obfuscation and changes the intent
of the first entirely, looks like.  

To clarify the Intellectual level, would it be useful to explain what
exactly it is that is missing in the early books of Bible?

- Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of KAYE PALM-LEIS
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 1:20 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Intellect's Symposium

Krimel,

Mati: Point, counter point, Point counter, etc. ...  I think it is
clear that you have a different perspective and understanding of what
intellect.  But for now I will continue this process I don't really
know to what end. :-)

> [Krimel]
> 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.

Mati: I think it is great that you see that intelligence or as you say
intellectual patterns served social patterns.  So when did
intellectual patterns free themselves from the social level and how?


> 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: I have read the "The Element" and likely written after Aristotle
but I doubt that it had a direct impact based on s/o split given it's
relative closness to time. But I could be wrong on this.  The question
is to what end does the story serve? The social level or intellectual?

> [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: Social patterns are encoded in our DNA?  If a child is raised in
the wild we clearly see a being that only beholded the biological
level, there are no conventional social values.  He may be a social
creature but he must learn those social patterns through some kind of
communication/language that are beyound the biological level.  Just so
you understand my background in education has provided me the
experiences that reienforce the idea that we need to be able to
communicate our social values in order for them to learn.  Without
this communication bridge, conventional social patterns cannot have a
chance to take hold.

> [Krimel]
> Look around the world and you will find that every primitive culture had
> arrowheads.  Snip.......

Mati: And I quote Pirsig...."  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."

>SOM is an intellectual tool.

Mati: We agree, and more so it was a tool that was able to deliver us
from the social level like no other tool we had before.

> But paintings and tools are intellectual patterns regardless of the
function
> they serve.

Mati: I once wondered the same thing. But that doesn't make sense
related to timing and the dawn of intellect as a seperate level not
beholden to the social level. So Art itself is not a litmus test for
intellect.  Art is great, it is important and I believe that intellect
perhaps can be conveyed through Art, but Art itself is not by it
existence a default for intellect.

> [Krimel]
> What ZMM and Lila show us is that like inorganic, biological and social
> patterns, intellectual patterns evolve.

Mati: No Arguement.

> [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.

Mati: In 2005 in Liverpool Pirsig was very gracious in saying that his
ideas, MoQ are based on ideas that were not new.  But give him credit
for uliminating SOM and giving us a formal metaphysical construct with
MOQ. As to when it takes hold within society and we can point to
changes accredited to it, well the clock just started ticking again
.... :-)

Sincerely,
Mati
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/