[MD] Intellect in the Bible?

[skutvik at online.no]

John the ......

Nov.3 :
 
Bo before 
> > The 4th. level isn't knowledge of how to do anything, nor of
> > knowledge of good and evil, it can best be recognized as SKEPTICISM.
 
John:
> Ok, I'll bite skeptically.  At least I've had some pre-school training
> in Skepticism from Royce, Skepticism takes him two places 1) The value
> realized in holding differing conceptualizations simultaneously and 2)
> the realization of fundamental basis of value by the assertion that
> even a skeptic must admit that error exists.

I thought the "skeptical" aspect of the fourth level would bring about a 
correct understanding of its nature (=static value) but even this evokes 
irrelevant interpretation as in Thomas skeptic to Jesus' resurrection ... 
etc. but what I mean is the SCIENTIFIC skepticism that scoffs at all 
religious explanation regardless.  Nowadays however science - 
physics -  has created a "scientology" that  have complicated the 
picture,but science scoffs at this too. Even if Niels Bohr promoted the 
strong interpretation of Quantum Physics he surely would refuse any 
divine interference.            

> > In the
> > ancient times when social value was top notch skeptics were absent,
> > no one (for instance) in Israel said to a prophet "are we  supposed
> > to believe this nonsense?"
 
> Ok Bo, but wrong.  You obviously haven't ever actually read the text in
> sequence and narrative form.  You obviously (to me anyway) have gotten
> your information about what the bible "says" from so called experts in
> various religious capacity.  Because it really is full of all kinds and
> differing ways of saying that exact thing, all the time -  "are we
> supposed to believe this nonsense."    Right there at the beginning of
> the story - moses is arguing with a burning bush that NOBODY is going
> to believe this nonsense. So the text deals with skepticism and on a
> personal empirical level ...

Well this is the aforementioned irrelevant interpretation of skepticism, 
what I mean is that - at that time -  no one would forward an the 
argument about combustion, oxygen, carbon  ...etc. Or bushes lacking 
vocal chords ...etc BTW I would have thought them more skeptical to 
Moses coming down from the mountain claiming to have met Javeh 
and received stone tablets. But again, this was an age of (what we 
call) magic,  a Semitic variant of the Greek Mythology gods who 
weaved out and in among the "mortals", having sexual intercourse with 
them and so on.    

>  I've never met a non-skeptical Jew in my life so I think they learned
> it early and well. 

This is an interesting point. "Semitism" (Jews and Muslims) have no 
"salvation by faith" like Christendom, something that runs even deeper 
to the former's Greek-S/O influence when people got souls (different 
from  bodies ) and this could be saved by "internal" faith. I.e. the whole 
worship turned inwards and silent. The Semitic however has no such 
intellectual component, no souls to be saved, all is external "sound 
and fury". Rules to be obeyed, circumsicion, number of prayers, 
positions ...etc.  Jews are neither skeptical or non-skeptical  - least the 
headbanging orthodox kind, the ordinary secular Israelis I don't know 
much about.      .      

> I can see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid its just a bit too
> sophisticated for me.  I'll stick to kindergarten, thanks.  You define
> intellect too narrowly for my taste anyway.  I can't get away from my
> perception of the Lila configuration of the 4th level being a
> dualistic romantic/classic split, with what you deem intellect as the
> classic side of the equation and subordinate to aesthetic non-verbal
> appreciation by me and Platt.

Why this reverence regarding intellect - at least in its 4th. level role? 
It's a static level and must be cut down to size from its SOM role as 
"consciousness". What has haunted this discussion for more than ten 
years is the "intelligence fallacy", namely that our capacity to think is 
identical to the 4th.level. 

Nota Bene!
It HAS in the sense that intellect adopted intelligence (from the social 
level that in its time adopted it from biology) and used it to think 
intellectual thoughts as before it thought "religious thoughts" (social 
patterns) and before that biological thoughts.   

But we have some "orthodox moqists" too who bangs head against 
some wailing wall and refuses any revision over this point - Steve 
Peterson calls it "a perversion", the fact that much of Pirsig's writings 
convey the SOL interpretation passes them by, as does Pirsig's 
"recanting" and his "newcant" in the Paul Turner letter. OK here I go 
again.  

I had said 
> > The true level occurred when human beings got the notion of
> > "existence". 

John:
> See, a bee doesn't seem to have much notion of existence either, but a
> wolf and dogs do.

Well, you chose to ignore the meaning of "notion of existence" which is 
the said "...one may not believe in religious salvation, but we are 
convinced that existence goes on,"  

> If you mean yours and my personal existence, that seems ridiculous to
> me with absolutely no empirical foundation whatsoever.   I should say,
> "in your dreams pal." and leave it at that.  For that's all
> speculation about afterlife is, dreams and speculation.

I still mean that "existence as such goes on although without me". We 
care about our children and provide for their future, a future we won't 
experience, but one we are sure will continue. This is what distinguish 
humans from animals and was the trigger for the social development 
..IMO   

> > Sure, emotions are social, but wasn't it you who claimed that
> > emotions=inorganic some weeks ago?

> nononono.  That doesn't make any sense whatever.  Even my babbling
> couldn't be that random.. ;)

Well it isn't important but I remember me lecturing about an antelope 
not surviving if its daily narrow escapes from lions caused "fear" in the 
emotional sense.

Bodvar