[MD] Intellect in the Bible?

[skutvik at online.no]

For John

2 Nov.:

    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)  

John:
> 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. 
 
Your criticism is based on the feeble grasp of the levels in general and 
the 4th. particularly, and you don't get much help from this forum. 
Pirsig is right, but it would have been doubly clear had he made Q-
intellect and SOM interchangeable, because it's plain that the said 
books are void of both.

> 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?  

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. 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?" The social age was (what we call) magical. 
Intellect emerged when the Greek thinkers started to look for - and 
found - principles (natural laws) beyond the myths. This was the 
budding skeptical science that by and by over-ran the mythological 
(social) reality. The Semitic type religions the last strongholds.          

> 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. 

Yes, this forum, as well as our whole culture, is so intellect-SOM-
steeped that no one takes the social age serious, but mythologizes it. 
However, this was a deep one I hope you mean that 
intellect=objectivism. but .....??

> It's virtually the one division between us and apes - they have
> biology, we have biology.  They have social groups, we have social
> groups.  

The social level is far more than mere "social groups". Beehives, 
anthills and wolf-packs aren't Q-social. The true level occurred when 
human beings got the notion of "existence". I mean one may not 
believe in religious salvation, but we are convinced that existence goes 
on, and this is what I think triggered the social development. This was 
also the start of the said "magical, religious era" (that intellect later 
grew skeptical to) mankind started to bury their dead along with tools, 
weapons, for their continued existence. 

NB!
This may also be identical with the "fall.from grace", "expulsion from 
Eden", "knowledge of good and evil". Mankind looking back in envy at 
their own innocent - beastly - past when they were free of guilt and 
shame. 

> 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". 

I hope you will see (from mine above) that the Quality levels may not 
always fit the intellectual level's (SOM) internal meaning with the 
"intellectual" and "social" terms.. 

> 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.

This you have to "translate" for me, you surely say something 
important but it evades me.

> And I still disagree vehemently  that emotions are biological.

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

Bodvar