[MD] What's missing

[skutvik at online.no]

Laird and interested parties.

First. I don't know if it was you who opened the SOL(AQI) issue 
some time ago, at least I had high hopes that this would lead to 
an acceptance of this interpretation of the 4th. level, but you just 
dropped out. On 19 March you delivered an input in the "What's 
missing" thread so I take it that you still have some interest in the 
most controversial level.  

> [Laird]
> Khaled, I hope you're right. I'd like to think that the social level
> is stabilizing, much like the other levels did before. We certainly
> don't see a lot of biological revolution going on these days either
> (aside from our poking and prodding at stems cells in the lab). As the
> social level increases its stability, hopefully people will start
> thinking more abstractly as the norm rather than the exception. Then
> we'll be ready for some real fireworks in the intellectual level.
 
> Back towards the question of "what's missing?" - At some point along
> our constructed timeline of history, a critical mass of the populace
> began to feel not only the urge to think individually but the
> acceptability to _communicate_ their internal dissent, to question
> authority publicly, and to collaboratively look for better ideas. As
> such, the intellectual level clearly has its roots in the social
> level, particularly when our social level developed to the point of
> people saying 'no' to authority from time to time (and not losing
> their head for it!).

If we regard (as Pirsig says) the age of the old Biblical books as 
pre-intellectual times, it's clear that there were lots of individuals 
who thought and expressed different ideas. Disagreement among 
themselves and disagreement with the rulers, disagreement 
between the mono-theists who returned from Egypt and the 
various godhead worshippers in the area, but everything was 
confined inside the god-centered reality. No prophet who 
expressed doubt in the God-myth (just calling it a myth is doubt) 
and/or suggested that such only exist in "their" minds having no 
objective reality ..etc..

Why is it so difficult to accept that what is described in ZMM as 
the emergence of the SOM also is the emergence of the 
intellectual level? Everything points to it; A taking leave of the 
Greek variety of the Mythological reality, beginning as an 
innocent quest for eternal principles, but snowballing through a 
few centuries into the first forms of SOM with Socrates and 
Aristotle. Still ages from the said subject/object and/or 
mind/matter forms and even longer from that of not "losing 
heads".                       

> Sure, individuals play a critical role in intellectual patterns, but
> they play just the same role in social patterns. Individualism (a
> social pattern through and through) may have played an important role
> in starting the intellectual level, but calling it an intellectual
> pattern is putting the cart before the horse.

Now, your're talking!! So disregard if the before is me 
misunderstanding you completely. The individual and "celebrity" 
were very much part of the social reality the highest celebrity that 
of being declared gods themselves. As said the OBJECTIVE 
attitude is what most clearly characterizes intellect, even if there 
exists belief in the paranormal these days we see intellect's 
footprints even here:  Experiments, instruments, observation, 
"studies"... etc. In the said Biblical times this attitude wasn't 
conceived of, the "paranormal" was their normality.      

> Well, there's my two cents. Hopefully I'll have more time to read and
> contribute soon!

See you soon. Particularly interested in your: "Then we'll be 
ready for some real fireworks in the intellectual level.  

Bo