Suggest that deliberate symbol manipulation is what distinguished the intellectual level.
Symbols are manipulated in Social level activity too but here think Social === Emotional; when considering others the emotions are always involved and the level of freedom to respond is more limited - at the Social level things happen more by reaction. Intellectual activity, is always about problem solving and requires a more deliberate effort to manipulate those symbols. -Peter 2008/7/14 Ian Glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Chris, DMB, SA, et al ... > > I'm catching-up / summarizing first. As MoQists we hold Individual > (Freedoms) in some sense above Social / Collective / Cosmic (Duties / > Responsibilities), and we hold Intellectual (PoV's) in some sense > above Social (PoV's). But ... exactly how ... > > (This thread embodies the recurring difficulty with defining > Intellectual as against Individual and defining Social/Collective > against Individual, hence even the Social / Intellectual distinction > still has some fuzziness. I have always preferred a view that treats > the social and intellectual as one level - and acknowledges a spectrum > of individual and collective patterns of value within it .... but > that's just me .... avoiding conflict - I like fuzzy.) > > We all value "freedom" - the liberals by defintion, and for the > conservatives it's a mantra to beat liberals with - and let the > partizan rhetorical battles commence - but not here please. What we > argue about is, that whilst intellectual patterns / individual freedom > are "higher" than collective / social patterns, we cannot agree any > valid limitations on freedoms by those collective aspects - markets or > social duties, whatever. "Governance" is my word for this problematic > issue - of limits to indivdual freedom - any or none. > > Anyway, as DMB says "symbolic manipulation" is not sufficient to > define intellectual from social. We have to communicate symbolically / > lingustically - and so do herds of antelope - to participate even at > the social level. > > This self-conscious "I" is definitely part of the evolved distinction > at the "individual intellect" end of this spectrum ... much has been > said about ego's and id's before. Social "animals" may not necessarily > involve a "self-conscious mind" in the symbolic manipulation. But > these "I"s can exist in both social and intellectual patterns. We have > a spectrum. We don't have distinct layers. > > OK, what specifically have you suggested Chris, that's not covered by that. > Ian > > On 7/12/08, Christoffer Ivarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Craig, Platt > > > > > [Chris] > > > > > > > The role of the intellect is first and foremost to take control over > > social > > > > level patterns - and that is also why, from a MOQ perspective, > Marxism > > (or > > > > any other political philosophy that seeks to subjugate social values > in > > > > favour of the intellectual level) is the only logical, and > evolutionary > > > > moral way. > > > > > > > > > > > [Craig] > > > "Subjugating social values in favour of the intellectual level" is > > notsufficient >justification. > > > > > > > [Chris] > > What do you mean? You don't want to create a society that places > > intellectual value over social value? > > > > [Craig] > > > It must do it in a way that does not violate higher intellectual > values. > > > > > > > [Chris] > > Perhaps, but what would these values be? Human rights? Freedom? You could > > line up slogans and I could easily identify all of them as being products > of > > the intellectual level, sure, but transformed into SOCIAL VALUEPATTERNS. > > > > [Craig] > > > At this Marxism fails miserably. > > > > > > > How so? When I talk about the Marxist theory I mostly mean the strive > > towards abolishing the capitalist system (so that social values such as > > profit isn't allowed to subjugate humanity's strive towards knowledge) > and > > how this is to be done there is different answers to, beginning with > classic > > Marxism saying we need a several hundred year transition period of > socialism > > where the social values are reshaped to be more in the intellectual > levels > > favour - and then there are others. We could discuss Leninism if you > wish, > > Lenin that I identify as a perfect example of a vessel for the > intellectual > > level trying to bring intellectual supremacy over social values about. Of > > course the conditions weren't there (in Russian and the world) and he > > happened to die young and get a rather bad successor, but still. > > > > [Craig] > > There'snever a shortage of "isms" or people who want to "subjugate social > > values". > > > > I think there is a shortage of people who truly act on behalf of the > > intellectual level. Most people only follow social patterns, and most > "isms" > > only plays on social patterns and values such as "freedom" or > "solidarity" - > > how many of the followers do you think actually can validate their > beliefs > > "intellectually" - without resorting to "Given Values" (Social ones to > be > > sure) and arguments like "because it just IS wrong!" ? > > > > > > --- > > A pleasure debating again, my mind was getting dull. > > > > > > //Chris > > > > --- > > > > > > This thing regarding the nature of the intellectual level has proven to > be, > > well, difficult - to say the least. I think we can all agree that the > nature > > of the intellectual level is that of a way of > > responding/understanding/seeing/etc Quality in ways that > > are different to > > the ways that the other levels /responds/sees/understands Quality. > > > > Most everyone of you are fully aware of the debate concerning the "Symbol > > manipulation" given by Mr Pirsig and other explanations and > interpretations > > of the nature of the intellectual level - most notably Bodvars SOL. > > > > I myself tend to discard the symbol manipulation explanation because of > > the - as I see it - quite obvious reason that this is not in conflict > with > > anything. The MOQ is a moral order, as we all know, and the different > levels > > have more or less competing "views" on Quality and how to follow it. Thus > I > > am inclined to thing along the paths of > > > > "What is not by it's _fundamental nature_ in service of either the > > inorganic, the biological or the social level?" > > > > As I said - manipulation of symbols doesn't really cut it for me - where > is > > the FUNDAMENTAL conflict? > > > > Today I thought about "human nature". Human nature and what thing it is > > that is usually connected to the expression that it is in "the human > > nature". > > > > The Quest for knowledge. Embedded in us since - well, pretty much > always. > > This drive that seems to be something that is a fundamental part of what > > makes humans humans, and something that - of course - may service our > > biological needs and our social standards, but that in essance is > separated > > from these things, that in essance is something that strives towards > > something quite aside from these Patterns of Value. Knowledge for > > knowledge's > > sake. > > > > I am not sure that it *is* the Intellectual level, but it sure seems to > be a > > most notable manifestation of it. > > > > Knowledge for Knowledge's sake. Alone. > > > > --- > > > > > > > > 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/ > 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/
