A FIRST RESPONSE TO DEFINE INTELLECTUAL PATTERNS AS PRINCIPLE CREATION.
>In a message dated 12/1/98 5:52:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>RISKYBIZ9@aol.com writes:
>DECEMBER'S TOPIC: BRAIN, MIND AND INTELLECT
>In chapter 12 of Lila, R. M. Pirsig writes:
>‘The mind-matter paradoxes seem to exist because the connecting links
between
>these two levels of value patterns have been disregarded. Two terms are
>missing: biology and society. Mental patterns do not originate out of
>inorganic nature. They originate out of society, which originates out of
>biology, which originates out of inorganic nature. And, as anthropologists
>know so well, what a mind thinks is as dominated by social patterns as
social
>patterns are dominated by biological patterns are dominated by inorganic
>patterns. There is no direct scientific connection between mind and matter.
>As the atomic physicist, Niels Bohr, said, "We are suspended in language."
>Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived.’
>Brains, minds and intellectual patterns……. How are these related to each
other
>and to society? What defines and distinguishes an intellectual pattern and
>gives it its lofty perch atop the static patterns of value?
>>
I have stated on many occasions about the nature of brain and mind. And no
one has yet put any argument to those posts. As to the intellectual pattern I
would try to put it simply for now and as a Squad we can develop it.
The definition of Intellectual Patterns should be the pattern created by
intellectual pursuit, namely theories or PRINCIPLE. I chose that word because
it is more fixed than "theory" but did not have the social implication of the
scientific word of "law."
Again, I like to look back and 'theorize' the beginning of Principle creation
and in this historical process I use the idea that the first principles were
choosing, organizing, and creating rituals and processes of passing on the
best of the Social patterns. And anytime there were two opposing social
patterns (tradition and change) it was either dynamically adopted or repressed
or kicked out (excommunicated) or somesuch. As society got more complex there
were many different places and levels of the social principles and eventually
there was a hierarchy of these principles in a Social organization. Then came
Socrates and the Sophists and the SOM split became official. I'm not saying
that's where SOM started because the Social Ruler always had many advisors
before then, be it economic, spiritual, or ethical.
Now, this is where we get juicy...and where the MOQ best helps. The
Intellectual patterns that still guide and judge over the Social patterns in
a process that goes on and on. But with the MOQ I think that divorce between
what we think about on social issues and how we reason in the scientific
village and how we talk about when we argue philosophical and moral issues
disappears and we are finally on the chessboard. I see many thread and paths
to follow so i will stop here and simply state that ALL social groups are in
this MOQ and thus all use intellectual patterns in their own little corners to
develop the best point of view that dynamically states reality to them.
kind regards,
xcto
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:42 BST