[MD] Babylonian intellectuals

[MarshaV]

Mary,

Maybe the difficulty is the Intellectual pattern that states objects are 
not objects, but patterns of value: SOM wiped out, end of story.   


Marsha 



On Jul 24, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Mary wrote:

> Arlo and dmb are struggling with a set of platypi below due to an incorrect
> definition of the Intellectual Level.  The unsolvable questions they are
> asking can be dissolved if it is understood that the Intellectual Level is
> not brains, smarts, intellect, or degree of intelligence.  Nor is it a
> bucket where you put thoughts, premises, ideas, or 'thinking itself'.  If
> instead of this, you define the Intellectual Level as a pattern of values
> which value subject-object logic and deny the primacy of value in the
> Universe, then all these questions go away, or become moot, or are solved,
> etc.
> 
> Best,
> Mary
> 
>> 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.
>> 
> [Andy]
>> 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.
>> 
> [Andy]
>> 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
>> 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/md/archives.html
> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___