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/
