[Ron] I thought this is what I was saying. [Arlo] You said, "Intellectual is the VALUE of the individual to the social/cultural."
We are saying different things. The intellectual level is not a description of how the "individual" is valued by the "social". Each level, as I see it, is a matter of value-relations within that level between certain "individual" patterns within that level and the larger patterns formed by their collective activity. Indeed, I'd argue that historically its been the exact opposite of what you suggest. Intellect's S/O foundations moves the "subject" into a role of mere observer. What YOU think about mathematics doesn't really matter, two plus two will always equal four. What YOU think doesn't matter, if that volcano erupts it does so because of natural forces that we can only passively witness and objectively describe. And "intellect" has historically pretended it was independent of social-cultural patterns. It attempts to isolate "man" and present the image that his vision is clear, that in fact society obscures that vision. It presents the illusion that there is a "pure" subject-object value relationship that is the goal of intellect, one which sees through the haze of distortion created social patterns. This is what echoes in your statement above. Intellect, I'd argue, is a valuation of a "transcendence". A transcendence that in S/O thinking elevates a material world to be objectively viewed by a lone subject. Buddhist intellect views this transcendence as a union, or a dissolution, of subject and object (which ZMM echoes). Intellectual patterns are an attempt to codify, quantify and/or describe aspects of this transcendence. And the underlying social and cultural beliefs about this transcendence guide and structure our orientation to it. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
