[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[KAYE PALM-LEIS]

Krimel,

> [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?
>
> [Krimel]
> I am tempted to say emphatically NEVER! Intellectual and social patterns
> have ALWAYS coexisted in Homo Sapiens.

> If you insist on a "when" and a "how", I would say, When the first large
> brained hairless ape emerged from the womb and by means of adaptation to
> selection pressures in the early environment our ancestors called home.

> "What end does the story serve?". Both, neither what difference does it
> make?

Mati: Wow talk about a show stopper.  So the social level and
intellectual level evolved in close succession. This is a very
interesting idea.... but know we are talking about something other
than MoQ.  At best there is co-existence of your so called intellect
and the social level. That seems pretty meaningless and a huge step
backwards.

[Mati:]
Social patterns are encoded in our DNA?
> [Krimel]
> Yes, they are. From the production of oxitocin in Mom, Dad and infant during
> the birth process, to the newborn's ability to imitate facial expressions at
> birth. From our innate ability to acquire language to social emotions like
> pride and shame; social patterns are biologically encoded.

Mati: Krimel I have to say, two show stoppers in one posting your are
going for a record. I can't say that enough how much I disagree with
this.

> [Krimel]
> First of all I am not at all convinced that there are such children. But the
> examples that are commonly used for this, all show children exhibiting deep
> and profound pathology. It's called Reactive Attachment Disorder. Ask Lu
> about it.

Mati: I am not sure that I could convince you much of anything at this
point. Personally I am talking about kids with profound cognitive
delays. RAD kids are tend to have elevated cognitive abilities in
comparison with the kids I am talking about however RAD kids don't
have the natural tendency to maintain social relationships.


> [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."
>
> [Krimel]
> I do not regard blindly following Pirsig as a virtue. It's the one thing I
> agree with Bo about. If Pirsig had meant to monopolize the MoQ he would not
> have kept referring to it in the third person.

Mati: Point taken, however I think he too was thinking in similar
relative respect to how we approached this issue of intellect.

> 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]
> When you see that intellect "dawned" with Homo Sapiens and is an outgrowth
> of primate social patterns it's not so hard.

Mati: Because the intellect you are talking about is certainly
something way different than what I am discussing.  Frankly you seem
to say any sign of intelligence is a sign of intellect.  That doesn't
tell us much and seems to have no general meaning other than to say
intellect or intelligence or thinking exist, they are they are
relatively the same thing, end of story.  I think the story of life is
far more rich than this.

All I can say is that we beat to different drums.  That is ok but I
think you have a harder time legitimizing you line of thinking as a
valid part of MoQ.

Sincerely,
Mati