[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[david buchanan]

John said:
But its tricky, because intellect, isolated off and examined on its own, is derived from a world view - SOM.


Arlo replied:
And here's where I disagree. I think intellect is derived from experience, built on a foundation of social patterns, and a metaphysical structure that sees subject/objects as the primary division of reality will certainly inform the subsequent intellectual patterns it gives birth to.  So I'd say, perhaps, "intellectual patterns" are derived (informed) from a metaphysical world view, that in the West has historically been "SOM", but does not NEED to be SOM.

dmb says:
It's handy that the question of intellect should come up in the "Humanism" thread. It seems that intellect, philosophy and humanism are intertwined as various aspects of the same historical development. And it's not that they were just happening at the same time. 
Again, here's a little Wikipedia. You'll notice one of Pirsig's favorite phrases; "man is the measure". I'll insert a few [comments] to let Mark know how I'm reading it. 

"Sixth-century BCE pre-Socratic Greek philosophers Thales of Miletus and Xenophanes of Colophon were the first to attempt to explain the world in terms of human reason [intellect] rather than myth and tradition [social patterns], thus can be said to be the first Greek humanists. Thales questioned the notion of anthropomorphic gods [theism] and Xenophanes refused to recognize the gods [atheism] of his time and reserved the divine for the principle of unity in the universe. These Ionian Greeks were the first thinkers to assert that nature is available to be studied [empiricism] separately from the supernatural realm [magic]. Anaxagoras brought philosophy and the spirit of rational inquiry [intellect] from Ionia to Athens. Pericles [invented democracy], the leader of Athens during the period of its greatest glory was an admirer of Anaxagoras. Other influential pre-Socratics or rational philosophers include Protagoras (like Anaxagoras a friend of Pericles), known for his famous dictum "man is the measure of all things" and Democritus, who proposed that matter was composed of atoms. Little of the written work of these early philosophers survives and they are known mainly from fragments and quotations in other writers, principally Plato and Aristotle. The historian Thucydides, noted for his scientific and rational [intellect] approach to history, is also much admired by later humanists." 
In Asian, "human-centered philosophy that rejected the supernatural can be found as early as 1000 BCE in the Lokayata system of Indian philosophy. Also in the sixth-century BCE, Gautama Buddha expressed, in Pali literature, a skeptical attitude toward the supernatural:'Since neither soul nor aught belonging to soul can really and truly exist, the view which holds that this I who am 'world,' who am 'soul,' shall hereafter live permanent, persisting, unchanging, yea abide eternally: is not this utterly and entirely a foolish doctrine?' "


dmb continues:
I think there's confusion because of the way the term "intellect" is used conventionally, outside of the MOQ. It can be used to refer to any kind of cognitive capacity. Our ancestors used words back in the Pleistocene era (from 1.6 million years ago to 10,000 years ago). I don't know how far back you'd have to go to find creatures who couldn't say, "hand me that stick". But does that count as the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols? No. Yes, of course it takes an amazingly powerful cognitive capacity to control fire, make tools and worship the gods of your tribe but that would be a social level capacity. But, as history unfolds we see that the first great cities give rise to the invention of writing and as the world got smaller encounters with other cultures inspired a new capacity for reflection on the values, heros and gods of other cultures. There was a profound shift in the material conditions of life, but the shift in consciousness was no less dramatic or important. 

The intellect is not this or that particular metaphysical view. It's more like the ability to have any kind of philosophical position. And one of the central things about it from the very beginning is it's capacity to scrutinize and examine the inherited traditions and beliefs. It's the ability to inquire, to be skeptical. Humanistic philosophers have been doubting their culture's gods since philosophy and human were born. To read this as two different steps in our evolutionary development makes a lot of sense of it, I think. The conflict between philosophers and the faithful continues even as I write this...

Prior to the axial age, when Buddha and Protagoras were dropping mind bombs, I think that societies evolved quite organically. I imagine that everyone was always just following the forms and traditions, even the kings and queens. They did what their ancestors did and their ancestors ten times removed got this from the dreamtime or something. If guys like Jung and Campbell are right, and I think they are, myths and symbols come from the same place dreams come from and they even share similar structures. It's normal to assume that culture is a human creation but they say it's more like humanity is a cultural creation. We didn't invent the myths or the language. They created us. 

An old african saying goes round and round - "people create stories create people create stories create people" - my coffee mug.