LS SOM and the intellect

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Sep 19 1999 - 00:49:08 BST


Hi Squad:

I have some random thoughts about the difference between the social and
intellectual levels and the emergence of intellectual capacities in
general. The posts have been very thought-provoking and its such a
delicious topic. Sorry if I've posted too much.

It seems language is common to both the social and intellectual levels,
but as Denis described there is an important distinction. Language is
social because it holds and conveys meaning, but Linguistics is
intellectual. Meta-languange is intellectual. Talking is social. Talking
about talking is intellectual. We believe in our language like a boat
believes in the ocean. There is no real choice in the matter. "We are
suspended in language." And since SOM is embedded in our language(s), it
does seem rather inescapable. I suspect the division between self and
other, between us and them, and between hunter and prey was apparent
even before the intellectual level emerged. SOM may have roots deeper
than Aristotle or the Greeks or even before the intellect, and so
Bodvar's SOLAQI seems to ask very reasonable questions.

I read about Ayla in "Clan of the Cavebear" 15 or 20 years ago. The book
contains some interesting ideas about the evolution of consciousness,
but I wouldn't recommend the film version. But there's a relevant movie
that I would advise anyone to see. Its called "Quest for Fire". Its good
as a movie and its fascinating in its depiction of pre-historic language
and thought. It is set way, way back in time, maybe even hundreds of
thousands of years ago. The grunts and gestures used by the actors were
developed with the help of specialized linguists and other scientists.
Anyone on the planet would be able to comprehend and follow the story no
matter what language they speak. Its fascinating to see human
communication before language.

Going even further back, there is a theory that our pre-human ancestors
began to scavage the bone marrow of found prey and the explosion of
protein in their diet "caused" an expansion in our brain size, which
made it easier to further develop food gathering techniques, which lead
to more protein in their diets, which increase the brain even further
and so on. I guess you could say its a "chicken or the egg" sort of
thing, but its really just one process.

In more recent times, say the last 10,000 years or so, there have been
lots of city-states and other kinds of highly developed societies, but
maybe the Greeks were among the first to achieve such a widespread
empire. They must have seen that cultures different than their own
seemed to function well enough. They must have seen that people with
different physical features, a different language and different gods
were still worth worthy in battle and valuable in trade. Circumstances
may had revealed the limits of their local traditions and customs and
introduced a need to talk about talking and think about thinking. The
experience of leaving the domain of their own culture, literally and
geographical, lead to an intellectual ability. I mean, its no accident
that the age of discovery and the scientific revolution happened at the
same time, is it? It must have been something like that in Ancient
Greece too.

I suspect the transition was NOT marked by a clear line. There must have
been a special class of priests and scholars in many of the
pre-intellectual cultures. As their "sacred" skills spread to the wider
population, intellect was born. Somewhere I read recently
that the first philosophers or "intellectuals" were members of a
particular cult, where "rationalism" was the object of worship. They had
rituals and rites of initiation just as any "mystery " cult would have.
And over two thousand years later, just around the time of the French
revoltion, Europeans were converting churches into "temples of reason".
I probably don't have to mention Pirsig's "church of reason". It had
already popped into your imagination, eh?

And doesn't all this evolutionary anthropology sound terribly un-MOQ? I
know it seems so much like materialism. Protein brain explosions?

I think the verse in John's Gospel goes something like, "In the
beginning was the word. (Logos) And the word was God. The same was in
the beginning that was with God...." This reminds me of Pirsig's, "..but
the intellectual patterns come before the inorganic..."
I'm not sure we can talk about evolution very well if the intellect
comes before all the history we've discussed. That's where I'm stumped.

DMB

MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:52 GMT