----- Original Message -----
From: "Arlo Bensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual Level
[Marsha]
Sounds to me like science and reason (EVEN of the S/O kind) are social
systems.
[Arlo]
I think what Pirsig is saying (correctly) is that the intellectual level
(ideas) is something that emerges from the social interactions of
individuals, not from "individuals alone" or "individuals observing
nature". What he is pointing out is two-fold, first that "intellectual
descriptions of nature are always culturally derived" and second that
"intellect" is not a function of the biological brain of wo/man but of the
social interactions that wo/man comes to participate in. That is, it
requires social activity for the emergence of intellect.
Greetings Arlo,
Maybe in an everything-is-connect-to-everything sort of way. This battle
between the collective and the individual seems a waste of time. If the
individual is an illusion, and it is, then the collective is a group of
illusions. - There are collections of interrelated and ever-changing
patterns. That seems to be the important point. The patterns in the Social
Level tend to function in an unconscious manner. The patterns in the
Intellectual Level seem to function, as Peter has suggested, more to solve
problems by manipulating symbols in a more deliberate manner. There is a
relationship between the two levels. Cannot see it being more complicated
than that.
Marsha
p.s. In the olden days when I was a youngster, the text books stated things
like, 'The pioneers forged their way West, taking their wives." As if woman
weren't subjected equally to every danger and difficulty. The women too
were pioneers. So thanks for the wo/man. It looks a bit clumsy, but the
pattern it sets up is of higher quality.
In the latter case, an "idea" is never the function of "one individual",
but of that "one individual participating in a social dialogue". In the
former case, he is assailing "objectivity" that says that the "individual"
can observe nature "unbiased by cultural associations", even to the point
of suggesting that what the individual "sees" is as much a function of
cultural derivation as whatever post-sight description s/he may apply.
You will never find, then, an intellectual pattern that is not rooted in
the social milieu from which it emerged, whether its mathematics or
philosophy. Nor will you ever find an intellectual pattern that is not
polyphonic (containing many voices).
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/
