Chris, You may hold that counter view to DMB's (and my) assertion - but you need to address the arguments. (My telos points are relevant, but ignored. It is no accident that knowledge contributes to real life progress.)
A pity you didn't address Mati's points in his thread, where I had already replied separately. If we just express I like X better than Y, and don't separate the specific points / arguments - connecting the arguments to the specific points - we are going to get nowhere. Ian On 7/16/08, Christoffer Ivarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mati, Ian, Bodvar, Everyone > > Mati provided some questions for us to ponder around, and I think it was a > very good thing that he did. Ian - I read your post, and I hope that this > answer will provide you with the input you are looking for from me - it it > doesn't, ask me again if I missed something. > > > > 1. How does your definition or understanding of intellectual > > level/value differentiate the social level from the intellectual level as > > well as social values from intellectual values? > > > > I think of the intellectual level as driven, at it's very core, by the quest > for understanding/knowledge. This Quest for understanding and knowledge is > at it's core not in service of anything else, because when you put them > alongside one another; the social levels core is that of maintaining a > social structure in the face of the continuing ongoing change that occurs in > every aspect of live and existence, and to do this it uses whatever means it > has to it's disposal - in humanities case even the intellectual level, but > in general the biological means it has subjugated. The intellectual level's > activity is continuously that of answering questions like "why" and "how" > and the like, Questions that at their core isn't asked in service of the > social level - BUT (I'll try to clarify this): The social structures that is > around when the intellectual level is working does influence the way that > the intellectual level works - I.e what this drive towards understanding is > aimed at. That is as it should be - all the levels exists in symbiosis, and > must do so. Moving on: > > > > 2. Given there is a evolutionary process to each of the levels, what > > is a possible historical point in which represents the likelihood for the > > birth of the Intellectual level, and what is the basis for this > > period/event(s) chosen? > > > > The intellectual level would have emerged as a child to it's parent level, > and I believe that at any moment in history when a social structure becomes > so evolved (due to it's makeup and relation to it's biological components) > that individuality is formed and able to be a vessel for the questions of > "why" and "how" - then the intellectual level is able to operate. Now, what > Ic mean by this is that there must be a notion of a self, seeking answers, > together or apart from others, before the intellectual level can start to > operate. > > Then, as the intellectual level is of higher evolutionary Quality then the > others, it can effect them, and change them, and so Intellectual PoV will be > created as something the social level holds up. Cultures will be created, > cultures that is social level and intellectual level creations in a fine > combination. Humans are born into them, and raised to think in certain ways, > so the social level provides a basis for the intellectual level to operate - > because the society was made into that kind of society due to it's relation > to the intellectual levels activities. If we take a pre-Greek society in > ancient Mesopotamia we may observe a society where people are born into a > society where the social level values are quite dominant, but the > intellectual level has provided the people with different kinds of > explanations to their innate question of "why" and "how" that the > intellectual level continues to give them - the answers will be "Gods" > perhaps - and so the intellectual levels provided explanatorily patterns > will be fitted to serve the social level - and be dominated by it. > > When a society is created where the intellectual level will have a stronger > position vis-à-vis the social one, we will se that humans born into it may > more easily be able to follow their instinct to perpetuate their "thirst for > understanding" (the intellectual level) without this process beeing directed > so heavily by the social level. There we find the Greeks I believe, and thus > could they institutionalize reason and the idea of "Truth" into the social > level, so that the intellectual level could operate from these more free > conditions when humans with their capacity to follow the intellectual level > and evolution was born into that society. > > > [I skipped the third question for now] > > > 4. Given that intellectual values dominate it's parent level, the > > social level, yet must sustain and maintain a relative harmony with the > > social level. Given your definition or understanding of intellectual > levels > > how do intellectual values do that? > > > > I don't think the intellectual level dominates it's parent level fully. It > never really has. The umbilical cord is not cut so to speak, and so they > effect each other mutually, each of them fighting continuously for > supremacy, but so intimately intertwined that it is hard to see what is > what, and sometimes some things may be equality a result of the intellectual > level at work as the social level at work. > > > > I have read Lila and much of Pirsig's work and am very familiar with what > > Lila has to say about some of these questions in a general context. Yet in > > Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner he seems to have made his final > contribution > > to this question. In a private final correspondence with him long ago, > > about a research question related to this very question of intellectual > > values, he more or less has hung his hat his letter to Paul Turner in his > > addressing the intellectual level. That being said, and with the deepest > > sense of respect and gratitude for Mr. Pirsig, I feel that we have failed > to > > really move forward on this question. Again I think Bodvar's approach, > > begins to provide the capacity to approach these, I believe, essential > > questions. Thus providing us with the capacity to move MOQ forward. > > > > I agree with you fully. And I too think that Bodvars approach is a far > better one then the other one. What I try to do now is to mud through it > all. I have only just started with all this, and all of you - well many have > been at it for the majority of my lifetime. We are all just seeking Quality > answers though - and I intend to do quality work with this. > > Regards > > Christoffer > > PS. Ian wrote: > > [Quoting DMB] "knowledge exists not for its own sake but to improve the > > quality of our lives, to guide future action and generally to make the > > world a better place." > > > > > I'd agree this is the main objection to your suggestion. > > > > I don't think this objection holds up. Mainly because I don't agree with the > assertion. Our strive for knowledge may lead us to find better ways to a > more comfy life - but that may have to do with the relation to the social > level, and most of all, the drive to understand things doesn't automatically > lead to this - at it's core. > > IMHO > > DS > > > > 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/
