[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Wavedave

21 Jan. u said:

> Love Ya ! Precisely the type of wriggling I anticipated. It immediately
> brought this question to mind. (Oops, forgot minds don't exist.) "What
> value, what good, does Bo bring to the MoQ and this site?" And almost
> instantly this popped out of (God?) knows where: "Bo by tenaciously
> over a long period of time holding a position that most others find
> untenable and irrational forces all of us to try to better understand
> the MoQ and its consequences. And this is GOOD." Thank you sincerely.
> But wouldn't you like to partake of just a little bit of the benefits
> of your role and expand your understanding of the MoQ? 

Sincere thanks Dave, but if the MOQ is revolution (Pirsig  indicates an 
in-out turning of the Reality "sock")  is it then probable that 
understanding it would be a "walk-over" as they say in football?      

> My guess is probably not, but for the benefit of increasing my
> understanding let's continue. I think we (you, me,& RMP in his publish
> words) agree that intelligence, intellect, intellectual, and
> intellectual level are related words with four different and distinct
> sets of meanings. And from an evolutionary and a MoQ perspective they
> evolved time-wise in the order listed above: intelligence first,
> intellect second, etc.

About intelligence different from intellect, total agreement. The former 
is a biological evolution, while intellect is a leap to a higher Q-plane 
(not from biology, but from society)    

> What we do not agree on is when in evolutionary time each emerged. We
> agree however that "intelligence" emerged first early within the
> biological level. Amoebas have enough intelligence to value that
> swimming in acid is a low quality situation. Then we moved on to
> intellect and Pirsig's first claim about it in ZaMM. Formal logic is
> not my strong suit but here goes.
 
> P Premise one: Modern humans (you and me) have intellects.

In ZAMM he confuses intellect and intelligence in the passage about 
Medieval man's intelligence (IQ) However - mind you - after the Greek 
"event" the Greek-influenced part of Europe became intellect-
influenced. I'll not pull the whole cultural history, but after Christendom 
became a Roman state religion (the Romans heavily Greek-
influenced)  Aristotle becoming a "Church Father" - Christendom 
turned away from its social-value  Jewdom roots.  Mankind got (a) soul 
different from the body (see the S/O!!) something unknown in Jewdom 
and Islam.   

> P Premise two: Medieval humans and Indian humans had intellects of the
> same intelligence and IQ as moderns humans the only difference being
> each has different "concepts of thought"

"Intellect's of the same intelligence". There is something fishy here. To 
illustrate what I mean, the "islamists" are as intelligent as hell, must be 
to think up so many deviish schemes, but this is intelligence in social 
value's service to prevent INTELLECT from destroying Islam! Look to 
the intellectual patterns LILA lists they are all are S/O-based  in the 
"object-over-subject" sense, what the islamists understand will 
undermine islam. And they are right!.   

> From which I concluded: Medieval humans and Indian humans had
> intellects. And proceed on to next conclusion because Indians and
> Europeans evolved separately for at least 13,000 years with no contact
> with Greece their intellects can not automatically be said to be based
> on SOL. 
 
Medieval humans perhaps, to the degree they were Greek-influenced, 
but generally this era is considered an hibernating of the Greek "spirit"  
to be re-born with the Renaissance. But Indians (native Americans) 
having intellect as part of their Q-constitution, no way unless there was 
a "SOM" emerging in ancient Arkansas ;-) But - again - intelligent as 
any, no doubt.

> But we bickered over the second premise. And I thought we agreed that
> "concept of though" was roughly analogous to "metaphysics."  In other
> words each of these groups had different ideas of "what they thought
> was real."

Brace yourself. I have at times called the levels "metaphysics" in a 
sense of a general overarching "attitude". It's of course silly to speak of 
an inorganic or biological metaphysics, yet when it comes to the social 
level it applies with a little goodwill. It was a magical reality where 
personal, emotional "forces" (AKA gods) governed everything. Thus 
there was something in common with all mankind from the Stone Age 
to the pre-SOM Greeks (the Oriental are not counted in this context) . 
This social "golden age" was interrupted by the intellectual level's 
objective attitude that abolished all god-influence. Nature was a value-
less inert realm blindly following as blind natural laws. No wonder that 
P.of ZAMM saw the social Aretê as Quality itself   ...and that the 
islamists hate to see it invading their world. .   

THIS IS INTELLECT! Not any conglomerate of "intellectual patterns" in 
the "any thought crossing  any mind" sense that's Steve Peterson 
peddles.  

> We then moved on to trying to agree on a definition of intellect and
> all agreement stopped. Why, because if you agreed that there are any
> substantial differences between the biological intelligence of animals
> and the biological intelligence of humans your whole SOL premise
> collapses.

>From the above you know what the MOQ intellectual level is, this is 
just wearing ourselves out. But OK, Of course there is substantial 
difference in the biology (brain) and the corresponding intelligence, yet 
the first humans still had biology as top level and used their great 
intelligence for biological purposes. Then the social level  loaded its 
"our cause" program and for XX thousand years intelligence was in its 
service. Then the intellectual level pushed social value down to some 
lower strata and plugged-and-played its own "S/O program" .... and the 
rest is history. 

> But the need for and the value of the word "intellect" is that there
> are indeed substantial biological and operational differences between
> the human brain and any other species. And that difference is its
> capacity and power to accumulate knowledge, share it with each other,
> and use it to build more complex social orders thus increasing the
> potential survival of the both individual and the group. And yes near
> the end of this journey, figure out how to rearrange and categorize
> this knowledge into subjects and objects. But you are not going to
> agree with much anything after "But we bickered...." anyway. 
 
Ditto! 

Bo before:
> > No agreement on language. It is immensely old - the Neandethals are
> > now believed to have had language,
 
> Ok, Did language emerge on the biological or social level?
 
On the social is the current opinion, but perhaps language was the 
BIOLOGICAL pattern that DQ rode to the social level, there is clearly 
some budding linguistic capacity (manipulation of symbols) with apes. 
But this I don't regard this as crucial for our discussion. only that 
Pirsig's "symbol manipulation" definition of intellect is way off.    

And this is as much as can manage

You are an ideal opponent Dave.  

Bodvar 























 
> It really make no difference. Based on your interpretation:

> If there are no substantial biological or operational differences
> between human brains and other species from the biological to
> intellectual levels except maybe an increase in intelligence.
> 
> And
> 
> We find humans and other species displaying most, if not all, social
> qualities throughout the both biological and social level:
> 
> What is the transcendent quality that distinguishes the Social level
> from the Biological? There is none. No social level and your original
> premise works. That it completely changes the MoQ structure is another
> matter.
> 
> Additionally if we go back to your original SOL premise: (from Dan's
> LC site)
> 
> > S-O thinking as Q-Intellect) which means that Q-Intellect
> > (generally) is the ability of an individual (biological organism) to
> > view itself as different from other (society) and thereby give rise
> > to the subject-object intuition which in time grew into the
> > S-O-METAPHYSICS.
> 
> We see that we have a biological organism that is somehow aware of a
> pattern of value "other (social)" on the higher social level which
> according to the basic ground rules of the MoQ is not suppose to be
> possible.
> 
> But you already knew that.
> The consequences of your proposal are:
> 
> All levels: Individual discreteness and moral codes by level. Gone.
> Social level: Must disappear. Gone. Intellectual level: Contains only
> patterns of intellectual value generated by or conforming to subject
> and object logic. The MoQ: Gone. Or on a newly emergent static layer
> above intellectual. Or floating around in the ether, God only knows
> were, and he's not talking, never has.
> 
> Do you understand now why so many are vehemently opposed to your
> interpretation as you are for it?
> 
> All to accomplish what?
> 
> > What is it that prevents intellect to be seen as
> > Phaedrus did in in ZAMM - as SOM - and its emergence described in
> > that book? Aretê then becomes its parent. This way ZAMM and LILA are
> > seamlessly joined, instead of the present situation where ZAMM is
> > some embarrassing relative.
> 
> Maybe seamless joined but with the MoQ of Lila left in tatters. One
> sail over 30 years old seamless attached to one ripped to shreds. An
> old Navy guy like me would rather jump ship than to put to sea with
> that. Happy sailing.
> 
> Face it Bo you read, understood, believed, and maybe were even trying
> to live by the Quality of ZaMM. 15 years later based on further
> thinking, more research, feedback from readers, and greater maturity
> RMP expanded a metaphysical sketch that was ZaMM into a detailed full
> blown metaphysics of Lila.  You were shocked and disturbed by his
> "progress" and have been doing your level best to change it ever
> since.
> 
> Regardless of your feelings it is quite clear which book RMP thinks is
> more important,more valuable going forward.  Your ZaMM baby died.
> Sorry. It lived a good life and supports Pirsig's. Try to move on, I
> know it will be hard, but try.
> 
> With sincerest condolences,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
>