[MD] Babylonian intellectuals

[Andre Broersen]

dmb to Arlo:

I don't know how to draw the line, exactly, but the social level can USE symbols but intellect is more like the ability to manipulate the symbols themselves, to do skilled work with the symbols themselves. It seems to me that the level of abstraction is key to the difference between social and intellectual levels. That is in terms of the quality of intelligence or thinking itself. But historically speaking, it's also a matter of which values are in charge, which are the dominate values in any given culture. In the case of ancient Egypt, mathematical knowledge was a rare secret. It was woven into the context of their religious beliefs and was used to serve social level values.

Andre:
Hi dmb, Arlo,
(Jumping on a fast moving train) but would like to get on somewhere...the roddy thing ignores stations...just keeps on going. I think Mr. Pirsig implies a line to be drawn between what is social and what is intellectual in his letter to Paul Turner in his 'definition' of the intellectual level.

Earlier posts (going back to the archives)were suggesting 'social level thinking' as opposed to 'intellectualizing' in an attempt to 'draw a line' somewhere. When Pirsig suggests that 'the greatest meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is confined to the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no corresponding particular experience and which behave according to rules of their own." would it be useful to suggest that 'social level thinking' (or the social level)is indeed a lesser level of abstraction...so that the operation becomes '...the skillful manipulation of symbols that have corresponding particular experience, which, in turn behave according to rules of their own'.( these rules are not necessarily based on reason or logic but may be based on ritualistic belief).

I still have about 90 posts to plow through and perhaps this response has already been made redundant but anyway...for what it is worth.