[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.
Ron:
Hmm, I'm working from the stand point of what one thinks does matter.
That volcano may be a natural force to you but it could be an angry
God for me, one that requires a sacrifice to appease. In the same way
2 large edible apples and two small rotted apples do not make four equal
apples.
Objective perception is not an absolute human perspective. It is an
invention.
Arlo:
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.
Ron:
I think when I say social you assume I mean western culture, I'm terming
It in a general functional understanding not necessarily SOM in
particular..
Arlo:
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.
Ron:
True, and I'd add that an individual may arrive at this themselves and
express this concept so that it may become a social and cultural belief
which guides And structures our orientation to it.
At least I don't think Einstein or Galileo were a committee.
It is this that defines intellectual the contribution
Of the individual to the social and vice versa an active
Dynamic exchange. Intellectual freedom is the allowance
To do so.
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/
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/
