From: siddhartha gautama (sariputra@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Thu Nov 03 2005 - 11:07:48 GMT
Michael Hamilton wrote:
>I'm totally in agreement with that last sentence, but I _do_ think
>there's something a bit momentous about subjectivity. In short,
>subjectivity is a brand new arena in which DQ can operate. The
>possibilities afforded by subjectivity are staggering - take Tolkien's
>creations, for instance. Subjectivity, though, is only one half of
>creativity - inspiration depends on DQ as well.
I think this definition of the intellectual level is inadequate. If
Tolkien's novels are examples of intellectual patterns then what is the real
difference between 'The Hobbit' and e.g. 'The Epic of Gilgamesh?'
Furthermore, this definition of yours means we cannot draw a line between
either of those two and e.g. the theory of general relativity or quantum
mechanics, which seems very odd.
In other words, subjectivity also applies to the social level and therefore
will not suffice as a definition of intellect.
Now, it seems to me that the ancient Greeks made a good enough distinction
between the social and intellectual levels when they contrasted mythos and
logos. One of the most general meanings of logos is 'argument', the
contrast of which to social-level storytelling is clear in Plato's
Protagoras. Discussing with Socrates whether or not areté can be taught,
Protagoras asks,
"But what would you like? Shall I, as an elder, speak to you as younger
men in an apologue or myth [mythos], or shall I argue out the question
[logos]?"
Opting for the former, he then proceeds to retell a myth known from Hesiod
(320c7-322d5). As an example, see this passage:
"Zeus feared that the entire race would be exterminated, and so he sent
Hermes to them, bearing reverence and justice to be the ordering principles
of cities and the bonds of friendship and conciliation.
Hermes asked Zeus how he should impart justice and reverence among
men:-Should he distribute them as the arts are distributed; that is to say,
to a favoured few only, one skilled individual having enough of medicine or
of any other art for many unskilled ones? "Shall this be the manner in which
I am to distribute justice and reverence among men, or shall I give them to
all?"
"To all," said Zeus; "I should like them all to have a share; for cities
cannot exist, if a few only share in the virtues, as in the arts. And
further, make a law by my order, that he who has no part in reverence and
justice shall be put to death, for he is a plague of the state.""
Protagoras, 322c-322d
He later switches mode, indicated by his statement to Socrates,
"What is the reason why good men teach their sons the knowledge which
is gained from teachers, and make them wise in that, but do nothing towards
improving them in the areté which distinguishes themselves? And here,
Socrates, I will leave the apologue [mythos] and resume the argument
[logos]." Protagoras, 324d2
He then proceeds in a rather different manner, the nature of which should be
obvious from the passage below:
"But why then do the sons of good fathers often turn out ill? There is
nothing very wonderful in this; for, as I have been saying, the existence of
a state implies that virtue is not any man's private possession. If so - and
nothing can be truer - then I will further ask you to imagine, as an
illustration, some other pursuit or branch of knowledge which may be assumed
equally to be the condition of the existence of a state. Suppose that there
could be no state unless we were all flute-players, as far as each had the
capacity, and everybody was freely teaching everybody the art, both in
private and public, and reproving the bad player as freely and openly as
every man now teaches justice and the laws, not concealing them as he would
conceal the other arts, but imparting them - for all of us have a mutual
interest in the justice and areté of one another, and this is the reason why
every one is so ready to teach justice and the laws; - suppose, I say, that
there were the same readiness and liberality among us in teaching one
another flute-playing, do you imagine, Socrates, that the sons of good flute
players would be more likely to be good than the sons of bad ones? I think
not" Protagoras, 327a-327b
So much for the distinction between the social and intellectual levels. As
to the 'upper' boundary of intellect, it is only 'seen' from the Buddha's
perspective and this is not something which one would refer to as a
metaphysical persepctive, despite the limbless protestations of The Black
Knight. Until this is recognised I'm afraid we will see more of this
endless thrashing around, like the fish who thinks he has caught the
fisherman.
SG
_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters
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 : Thu Nov 03 2005 - 11:14:50 GMT