SA, Ian, Ron, Arlo,SA said:Exactly my point. You even say here, "we aren't
defining_completely_,". I've also said on other posts we do try to define these
levels, and it is an on-going process. I'm not contradicting myself. I've been
holding the same view. As I said above, "This is how improvising works so well
on the day to day events." I'm in the middle of trying to define what is an
'emergency' at work. What we end up using and enforcing as an 'emergency' will
probably differ than an emergency in Iraq. So, when I say we can't define
intellect, this is a statement that will work around the world due to diversity
and why I believe it holds well with democracy. This statement emphasizes the
openness where creativity can sprout. When I say we can try to define intellect
(and we do and will) and it is an on-going process....Matt:As a point of logic,
the only way you don't contradict yourself is if you switch definitions of
"define," which allows you to say both "can" and "can't." As a point of
etiquette, I wouldn't stress the non-contradictory nature of your statements if
doing so requires you to be explicit about a concerted effort to employ such a
switch. It's what they call sleight-of-hand.Which doesn't matter all that
much, because I see that you're saying something similar. We can't define, in
the sense of define that Plato thought we could do. We can define, in the
sense of define in which pragmatists suggest is all we need (and most people
wander through their lives doing without worrying about philosophy).SA said:I
realize you've placed language in the same area as the moq's intellectual
level. Yes, you've defined language as being what's on this level, but I would
say a better understanding of all the languages would be to know all the
diverse languages. Some languages do some 'things' for some cultures, that
other languages of other cultures don't do. Yes, they are all languages, but
each language is diverse enough (some more than others of course) to
demonstrate a diverse realities. How does this fit into what your
saying?Matt:I'm not positive what you're saying here, but it doesn't sound
adverse. I agree that each language does different things, which is why in
English we pick up other phrases from other languages in toto, rather than
translate. It is easier sometimes to just incorporate the foreign word or
phrase into the mother tongue to use it the way the foreigners use it. Using
the singular "language" has its pitfalls certainly, but it's easier when you
are trying to talk about the commonality between all the diverse ones.SA
said:By the way, I see language on the intellectual level, too. I see language
as another kind of paint brush or musical instrument, poetry if you will.
Language is a very creative intellectual tool.Ian said:Agreed. But the point is
it's a creative tool on the social level too ... so in itself .... language,
symbol manipulation, communication ... does not help distinguish what is
intellectual.Matt:Yeah, language is inherently social, which is why I tend to
boot "social" and "intellectual" as level-monikers.Ron said:Perhaps
intellectual is the individual manifestation of culture Or culture of the
individual.Matt:"Culture of the individual" is far closer to what I like to
think of as what happened in Greece. I think this culture is what you get with
democracy (as you later referenced). But Ian is absolutely right that
"collective v. individual" is far too simplistic to get at the difference
between a putative social and putative intellectual level. (Though I think Ian
and I may have different reasons for thinking so. For instance, though I think
Ian's continuum between authority and critical thinking is an important one, I
think it is at cross-purposes with my view of level-making. My reasons for
rejecting the "collective v. individual" as the contrast that gives meaning to
"individual" are pretty much those of Arlo, though my reasons for keeping the
word around are because I'm emphazing the _culture_ bit. I should also add
that there is very good reason to think there is a contrast between cultures in
which everything is up for political grabs--a _culture_ that could under strain
be called "collective"--and cultures in which there is an inviolable sphere of
action, a culture that creates a public/private distinction. This latter
distinction is what I think creates the culture of the individual, and the best
wisdom on the subject is still found in Isaiah Berlin's "Two Concepts of
Liberty".) On my account, the invention of politics was the invention of the
individual, and there's nothing called "politics" without at least the idea of
democracy (authoritarianisms do not allow politics by definition, since there's
nothing political about rule by fiat).Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by
today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline
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/
