[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[skutvik at online.no]

Dee Tee

26 Jan.  David Thomas wrote:
-
> With you rounding up both Pirsig's responses on the issue, the point
> is that he clarified himself to say the intellectual level did not
> just evolve in one place, at one time, and only with S/O base.  Which
> is all I was trying to get you to agree to.
 
[Bo before]
> > No one has forwarded any argument about a non-intellectual Orient.
 
> I just did. In an attempt to show you the consequences holding a
> position that the emergence of the intellectual level is limited to
> SOM and that it is a separate stage of evolution like, physical,
> biological, or social. Which is the SOL premise. So the "no one" who I
> am point to is you as the consequences of your premise.

The 4th level as the VALUE of the S/O distinction I hold as self-evident 
as the American Founding Fathers did the equality of all people. You 
seem locked into your fallacy of the 4th. level as some mental prowess 
- the lack of which makes people into half-witted morons - and as long 
as this state exist between us we are unable to communicate.  

> You have already claimed that Native Americans had no "intellect".
> Which includes Aztecs, Mayan, Inca cultures to name a few. (RMP & me
> disagree) But the bigger point is that the label "Oriental",which
> Pirsig uses too, is a Eurocentric term for every culture East of it.

Sure, point to intellectual patterns among the American Indians. Any 
democracy,  independent judicial systems ...etc? The "US" Americans 
were just a nomadic tribal system, but just as intelligent as the 
Europeans who came over mind you.  

We have the Middle East in between and that's mainly a Muslim 
culture that fights intellectual value with fanatic will. The Orient is of 
course a huge area and immensely diversified, but I agree with Pirsig 
that the intellectual level were established here with the Uphanisadic 
period, however, it did NOT cement into a SOM before they went on to 
a Quality-like stage Buddhism-Taoism.  

> Essentially everybody else. Any current statement about basic reality
> that excludes "intellect" from the majority of the human race is not
> only misguided, it is sure to be interpreted as racist, and it is
> scientifically, and in every other way, just plain wrong.

Yes, this silly misunderstanding occurs if  the term intellect is confused 
to mean INTELLIGENCE. Are you deaf?. How many times must I point 
to it to penetrate? Or has it become your "cause"?. 

> Does this mean that your position has never been held? Absolutely not
> during the period that the term "Oriental" was created this was the
> dominate paradigm of both science and the public. It was operating
> system of colonial expansion. All others were subhuman. My guess is
> you are not interested in going back to that paradigm.

?????????????   

And I don't feel much for continuing this

Bodvar