[MD] What's missing

[Ron Kulp]

Bo,
The Social level seemed to emerge when the individual competition for
survival diminished by forming
Hunting or gathering groups.  intellectualizing I feel began with
language not communicative for 
Communicative started with labeling. Just when humans began to look at
their surroundings and
Ask why? Is speculative but I think the awareness of death played a role
as we discussed.
Perhaps death started the intellectual level and still figures heavily
in it.  All 
Religeons are death oriented to give life a meaning. MOQ is life
oriented and perhaps
Why it feels like a budding 5th.
-Ron



-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of skutvik at online.no
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 12:58 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] What's missing

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






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/