From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Fri Mar 21 2003 - 09:55:41 GMT
Dear Platt,
I hope you don't mind if I go on communicating to you my views on this
subject to the extent that I haven't done so in previous posts.
You confirmed 9 Mar 2003 12:23:14 -0500 that you mean homo sapiens when you
write that man is separated from beast by the distinction between the
intellectual and social levels rather than by the distinction between the
social and biological levels.
So we agree that the intellectual level started historically with homo
sapiens!
You also seemed to agree 20 Feb 2003 10:07:15 -0500 that the patterns of
value we see in 'chimps, baboons or the food-washing monkeys of Japan' are
largely biological patterns of value. If the MoQ requires a historical
period in which social patterns of value occupied the highest level, it
seems only logical to me to presume that it must have been the hominids
(except homo sapiens) that participated in this social level.
Whether you call hominids 'humans' depends on your definition of 'human'. I
don't remember Pirsig writing enough about this historical period to make
out what 'human' would exactly mean for him. You are always very good at
unearthing appropriate quotes. Did he write anything that could indicate
that he meant that only homo sapiens participated in the social level before
the first intellectual patterns of value?
You wrote 9 March:
'how early man was different from apes, except for walking upright and other
physical differences, is largely speculative'.
I think the remains of patterns of habitation and of artifacts are enough to
deduce and model how hominids lived. These remains are clearly more advanced
(and more consistently so over time and space) than anything contemporary
anthropoid apes produced. On top of that, the spread of these remains
indicates that their material culture enabled hominids to adapt to and
migrate across other ecosystems much faster than other species.
David B. wrote 1 Mar 2003 17:48:53 -0700:
'a few words about hominids. Your picture of the social level raises an
interesting question; what sort of
consciousness produced the most basic stone tools. It is interesting that
the same designs for the same tasks persisted for so long. The technology
was exceptionally static. I don't know if "unthinking" is the best word to
describe the apparent lack of creativity or innovation, but I see the point
of it. Interesting. I think the appearance of homo sapiens is pretty much
synonymous with an explosion in creativity and innovation, and not only with
stone tools. Some of those astonishing cave paintings reach way back into
time and show an already highly developed culture of art, ritual and magic.
In any case, I don't really see the need for a missing link. The question is
really just about where we want to put those early hominids. Are they very
advanced animals on the verge of a breakthrough or are they the most primary
and basic social level creatures? Does the social level begin with stone
tool making? Maybe. But, animals like chimps have been observed using sticks
as tools. Recently I heard about some crows that made simple tools out of
wire.'
If you (unlike David) agree that this 'explosion in creativity and
innovation' with the appearance of homo sapiens marked the birth of the
intellectual level, the answer to his question where to put early hominids
is clear: social level participants that have no 'consciousness', 'mind',
'thinking' worth mentioning yet to help them 'find food, detect danger and
defeat enemies' (in Pirsig's words).
You also wrote 9 March:
'Intellectual types do engage in sex ... When they do, it's biological
behavior. Likewise, intellects who engage in terrorism exhibit biological
behavior.'
Good; calling TERRORISM biological BEHAVIOR is already much more acceptable
for me than calling TERRORISTS biological PATTERNS OF VALUE. Terrorism does
have a lot of resemblances with the pattern of 'might makes right' which we
see a the biological level (if we look at it from an intellectual
perspective: otherwise we couldn't use the word 'right'). I still think that
(modern) 'terrorism' can ALSO refer to a social pattern of value (copying of
'fear' and related unthinking behavior, without which terrorism would have
far less effect on the victims) and to an intellectual pattern of value (the
motivation of terrorist behavior as a means to reach specific goals, e.g.
the departure of US forces from Saudi Arabia).
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 21 2003 - 09:55:51 GMT