[MD] Babylonian intellectuals

[Andy Skelton]

Arlo to dmb:
> Are you suggesting that should a priest use mathematics, the calculations are "social"? Is "2+2=4" a social pattern if it is used to count sheep in the field, but an intellectual pattern in a modern classroom?

dmb to Arlo:
> Well, not exactly. But when kids are learning how to add in the modern classroom they are introduced to the concept in very concrete terms. A math text book at that level might even have a picture of two pairs of sheep, for example, when introducing the concept. This developmental process probably recapitulates the evolutionary process as a whole. So, what I'm saying is just that math was born in a practical, concrete situation and was simply a matter of counting things like sheep, cows, days, slaves, soldiers, taxes and the like. Some of the oldest written records, in fact, calculate portions of beer per slave per day. This takes intelligence and the use of symbols but it is relatively concrete or rather it's not very abstract.

Counting sheep by scratching lines in the sand is a total abstraction
of concrete thing. It's not a little of this, a little of that. The
lines in the sand have no value but in the mind where they represent
something. Even without numerals and arithmetic it's pure abstraction.

I have no position on whether this gets them the "intellect"
distinction. I'm not going to get into what you two are doing, which
is arguing over which algorithm is best for sorting sand. You aren't
proposing to do anything with the piles except stamp your name on
them. It just squeezes all the value out of the metaphysics to treat
it this way.

None of us ever in our lives complete the work of defining any one of
the levels. It is a fool's errand. No, I'm not calling you foolish
personally. Only your current activity. Don't recant or apologize; the
social ledger need not balance here. I just hope you find a better way
to apply your intellect.

To properly condemn what you're doing I feel I should name it. So I'll
call it Definism. I don't know what to call my position.

Subsequently, I looked up Definism and found the word already in use.
It fits well enough.

Arlo to dmb:
> ... I am not suggesting that intellect dominated the social worlds of these ancient cultures, far from it. Its obvious that social patterns were in control, but I think in these calculations we see the appearance of newly emerging intellectual patterns.

dmb to Arlo:
> Yea, something like that. Maybe they were the direct precursors. I mean, it seems like we still live with both levels and it's easy to see how one grew out of the other. Alchemy and chemistry, astrology and astronomy, numerology and mathematics, ritual calendars and scientific time, the soul and the self, etc.. And I think this general shift has everything to do an increased power of abstraction. The idea that intellectual values only recently came to dominate and are still being resisted by neo-Victorian reactionaries shows, I think, that we are still living with both. I mean, in some sense you can see how ancient Babylonians thought by looking at social level people in our own time. It wasn't that long ago, you know? It must have been something like a fundamentalist's mind.

You think intellect dominates society in any part of this world right
now? I think you're fooling yourself.

Mumbling in a puddle of piss,
Andy