[MD] Intellect in the Bible?

[markhsmit]

Hi John,
I am in agreement with you.  Pirsig relegates the human mind
from a few thousand years ago to some inferior capability.  The mind
has not changed in that time.  Pirsig elevates his thinking as
different and superior to that of the past.  We have just as many beliefs
as were present back then.  Because we have created descriptive 
terms for everything, doesn't mean that we think differently about
them.  In fact, in current times we relegate much to something which
is understood, and therefore dead.  The total lack of novelty
in much of our day to day lives is due to the lack of gods.
Arrogance and hubris often leads to small minds.

The metaphors provided in books such as the bible open up a
whole range of personal thoughts.  This is indeed much more
powerful than say a science book.  Pirsig negates the power of
the mind by categorizing many things as the final truth.  Through
the construction of MOQ, in Lila and subsequently, he leaves so
much out of the human experience.  These things are left in in
other more powerful books. 

While emotions may have a biological basis, our sense of
the emotions does not.  Emotions cannot feel themselves.  The brain
cannot experience itself thinking.

Cheers,
Willblake2

On Nov 2, 2009, at 10:12:18 AM, "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
From:   "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
Subject:    [MD] Intellect in the Bible?
Date:   November 2, 2009 10:12:18 AM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
RMP: 'But if one studies the early books of the Bible or if one studies the
sayings of primitive tribes today, the intellectual level is conspicuously
absent. The world is ruled by Gods who follow social and biological patterns
and nothing else.' (Letter to Paul Turner)


Sorry, RMP, wrong. But that's understandable because after all, you never
claimed to be much of a student of the bible.

When we say "bible", we mean a collection of books started by Moses. Since
Moses started them, we ought to consider his work as sufficient to
understand the rest of what followed. Besides, if I can establish the
Intellectuality of Moses to satisfaction, I can certainly establish that old
Greeky Paul.

Let's just start with the first thing - the fruit of the tree of knowledge
of good and evil. Isn't that as poetical a description of man's
intellectual burden you've ever read? I mean I'm sure nobody is naive
enough on this forum to take Moses's little story as literally true,
therefore the only possible explanation is that it has some sort of
mythopoetic meaning and the only one that makes sense to me is objectivism.
It's virtually the one division between us and apes - they have biology, we
have biology. They have social groups, we have social groups. We have
intellect.... ooops.. something different about man. SO to my mind, if
you write a story ABOUT man's fall from primitive grace through the adoption
of Objectivism, in a form that people remember and pass on for thousands of
years - that's as intellectual as it gets if you ask me. You're not only
"talking about", you're talking about "talking about".

Second, let's look at his encounter with this burning bush metaphor. Naming
a god "yahwey" - a refutation of being part of objective reality, is very
intellectually significant. Maybe the people he was describing were not
intellectually oriented (few people are) but Moses's commentary upon those
people certainly was.

And I still disagree vehemently that emotions are biological.

John the anarchistic
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/