[MD] Bo's right! For all the wrong reasons? (Part2)

[David Thomas]

Ian,
> 
> That says intellect pre-dates science & philosophy, not that intellect
> pre-dates the intellectual level. No surprise that intellect is used
> to rationalised society's actions.
> 
I think in his response to being ask when the intellectual level emerged he
said something to the effect, "That he couldn't see it emerging much before
the time of Classical Greece" Which most historians and philosophers claim
is the birthplace of science and philosophy. Later under further questioning
he allowed that maybe it could have also emerged in early Indian
religion/philosophy but it didn't take the SOM course. He then goes on to
say:

>>The intellect's evolutionary purpose has never been to discover an ultimate
>>meaning of the universe. That Is a relatively recent fad. Its historical
>>purpose has been to help a society find food, detect danger, and defeat
>>enemies." (Lila, 24)

Then when, historically, did people first find not the need, but the
physiological and particularly the mental where-with-all to actually change
their behavior and environment to do something meaningful about fulfilling
these needs? This certainly was thousand if not hundreds of thousands of
years before Classic Greeks. So if the biological level emerged with the
first twinkle of life, how is it that the intellect emerged and somehow
existed without a level to occupy for thousand of years? It didn't.

Hence my conclusion that it is highly probable that evolution of the brain
in humans reached a point such that what separates animal social behavior or
values from human social behavior or values is what we now commonly call the
intellect. Therefore Pirsig's claim that the intellectual level emerged out
of human society is wrong. The a minimum they emerged and evolved in
parallel. Which means the whole MoQ level structure and moral relationship
are also wrong.

Dave