[MD] What all is about.

[Peter Corteen]

Bo, that's a nice nickname.

I don't think I've read many of your posts in the past; I'm not clear on
what you mean by Q-intellect. Do you mean the moq intellectual level?  I
agree that there is no 'social level' in SOM; I can see only two possible
'levels' in SOM, the S and M. But surely social activity can be modelled in
SOM?

I don't see the social level as simply a grouping of individuals either.
Even the wild monk on the mountain still has his behavioural restrictions as
imposed by his parents, extended family and peers. It's in the mind as I'm
sure you'll agree, it's about personal interactions and considering others.

If I have understood you, you think the architect is the intellectual but
the builder not. Do you think tradesmen aren't creative? Do you think
animals have intellect? You think the intellectual level should really be
recognised as SOM - animals can't say or therefore think 'I' but surely they
register a distinction between themselves and the 'savage garden' they
inhabit, is that no SOM activity?

I understand intellect to be a general term for all kinds of reasoning, and
intelligence as the manifestation of intellect, so I think calculation is a
function of the intellect. (Most of the arguments in  moq-discuss, as far as
I can see, are due to differences in understanding of the meaning of certain
words or phraseology). Calculation is a mental activity and it doesn't
involve considering other people, so it can't be from social mind and so, in
moq terminology, must take place in the intellectual level. This is tricky!

Your knowledge of social and religious history is better than mine - thanks
for the other info.

-Peter


On 06/11/2007, skutvik at online.no <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter
>
> On 5 Nov. you wrote:
>
> > you refer to the Muslim world as a social level culture that has not
> > adopted intellect as it's focus. This is a touchy subject and you are
> > brave to say that. I'm not sure you are right though your words
> > certainly resonate.
>
> Yes, it is a touchy subject particularly as "not being focussed at
> the Q-intellectual level" may sounds as if subhuman, but you
> have understood it like I do. The lack of a "social level" in  SOM
> causes much confusion. Pirsig modestly said all levels are known
> but the social has no SOM counterpart, it simply means any
> grouping together of individuals. When in addition Q-intellect has
> attained a faulty interpretation as mere mental activity, there are
> trouble.
>
> > The Muslim world has produced fantastic
> > architecture and art over the centuries and, of course,
>
> Well, "architecture" as an academic study is certainly intellect,
> but building - even the most impressive edifices - aren't IMO, The
> Egyptians and Babylonians were not intellectual cultures (in
> Pirsig's view) and the cave paintings were/are as artistic as any.
>
> > they have given much to mathematics also; all of these require
> > intellect.
>
> Mere calculation isn't  intellect but intelligence, As said to David
> M the said Babylonians and Egyptians knew the relationship
> between the legs and hypotenuse in a rectangle and used it, but
> only with the Greeks and Pythagoras' Theorem did it become
> intellectual in the sense of showing how it objectively works and
> is an eternal truth.
>
> During Medieval time - when the weak Greek-administered
> intellect went into hibernating - the legacy was taken care of by
> Arabic scholars, but this scientific-intellectual endeavor, and the
> secular lifestyle the academics lead, threatened Islam's real
> cause and the Assassin sect (an Al Qaeda counterpart) sprang
> up. They displayed the usual disregard of death and assassinated
> the Sultans and Kalifs who supported the academics. This
> fanatism is islam's tragedy, it surfaced again these days as it saw
> its purity threatened by Western Values (read: intellect's patterns)
>
> > I am not a Muslim but my impression of their way of life is
> > one of very strong social pressures where it is barely possible to even
> > consider that Allah may be a myth as that in itself would be enough to
> > guarantee your oblivion; they could argue with the non-believer but
> > never really consider their point of view.
>
> Exactly!!!
>
> > It's a growing force, a true giant; I hear of Westerners converting to
> > Islam but I never heard of an ex-Muslim.
>
> I don't really think Islam is growing, perhaps it's progress in some
> parts of the world - say - Africa compared to their animism, and
> some oddball in the West may want to be "devout", but in the big
> picture .... now I almost start on the Pakistan and Afghan issues.
>
> > Many Westerners are the same though; those later-day, born again
> > Christian saints; Julian Jaynes in his 'Origins of Consciousness in
> > the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind' said that this possibility of
> > hearing a voice inside your head as if it were not your own was due to
> > a different brain structure.
>
> Yes, I have maintained that Christendom were of the same - um -
> semitic quality until the Enlightenment movement and the
> ensuing decline of the Church's influence. Now I open another
> Pandora's Box, but the real source is Judaism of which Islam is a
> mere sect as is/was fundamentalist Christendom. But in contrast
> to the Muslim world the Orthodox Jews are a curiosity in Israel
> and the born-agains in USA and Europe can't unhinge
> democracy.
>
> The Julian Jaynes' theory we once discussed much, I believe it
> can be a valid description how very early mankind - the social
> level's infancy - perceived reality, perhaps some retained the
> capacity and is how the prophets of old received their many
> messages.
>
> 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/
>