Kia Ora Everyone,
Marco and Magnus, you raise some interesting points
concerning the hieroglyphs and the intellectual level. It is this I wish to
address. At an early date in civilisation, the Egyptian civilisation to whom
these hieroglyphs belong to wanted to not only communicate their
intellectual ideas but wanted to record them, preserve them for future
generations of Egyptians. It was by this means that a civilisations was able
to preserve elements of their culture (static patterns of value) and then
build upon them (dynamic patterns of value). However it the word value that
should be emphasised here.
The social level of value was already established, the rules of governance
over the kingdom in place to preserve and stabilise the social level (when
Moses came and asked, 'Let my people go', they didn't want to do this
because then the social level would crumble and so would their means of
governance.4000 years later, the legacy of a past empire is left behind in
their ritualistic burial tombs and their language.
The hieroglyphs would have no intellectual value to anyone without an
intellectual level of some sort. As Magnus pointed out, the inscriptions
would be purely an inorganic pattern of values, to a biological entity that
as instinctive social values (ie a bear, wolf, cat etc). However those
entities that have highly evolved social patterns of values such as
primates, then such inorganic patterns of values may be recognised as just
that, an awareness of a pattern, and then the intellectual level kicks in.
> Bravo. but not quite there yet...
> The Hieroglyphs themselves cannot be considered
> as intellectuall value. They are simply an inorganic
> mainfestation of the intellectual pattern. Yet even
> if no one could read them, they would still be a
> manifestation of a language, a socio/intellectuall pattern.
If the preceding social level loses its static base then the Intellectual
level will collapse. This has happened with Egypt, the Roman Empire (i hope
its loosely correct Marco) and Post communist Russia.
Why should intellectual level values prevail over
social level values?
Does it? If we keep in mind that RMP pointed out that each level must
preserve the one below it in order to move on, progress towards good, then
each of the above examples show the intellectual level being detrimental to
the social level.
So how does this tie in to the hieroglyphs, the same as the alphabet. The
alphabet as with the hieroglyphs, are intellectual patterns of value. They
have no social value. It is only when the intellectual level can organise
and manage these letters into a system of words that can be used to
communicate ideas, feelings etc, that the social level can see the value.
The great ongoing conflict of the 20th century is about the conflict between
the two levels of value.
When the social level does not understand or agree with intellectual level
direction then the conflict occurs. Genetics, pollution, ecological social
degradation. The intellectual level will only prevail over the social level
if it is for the good of all levels. Otherwise conflict occurs.
Hieroglyphs are inorganic and intellectual patterns of value but are
pointless without the support of the social value.
Ka Kite
Andrew
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:24 BST