Look Chris ... I can't indulge you on all fronts at once ... One point at a time. (You say many different ways that social and intellectual interact, and use many different words .... yes, yes,yes, we agree already - zillions of ways I said. Yes intellect is a part of a quest for knowledge. Yes, yes, yes ... we agree already.)
The point being challenged was "for knowledge sake" (alone). Only that for now. We will probably need to unpick knowledge itself - get some working definitions understood - as we go along. You said knowledge / understanding. I might say knowledge / understanding / purpose / meaning / wisdom. No need to argue or agree for now .... just hold that thought as we go along ... you can see that your choice of the word quest is related to the question "what for" ?). OK - steady now - we all use knowledge (and our intellect, reasoning) for many everyday purposes. We are not all pushing the blue-sky boundaries of human knowledge with our intellect. True or false ? (None of this denies anything else you said - nothing else needs re-stating, yet.) So true or false (that one point above) Then we can move on to another. If you disagree with that one point I'd say the onus was on you to demonstrate my error - not explain the whole of MoQ to me - just the error I (and DMB) make in that common sense assertion. If you agree, I suggest we drop the "for knowledge sake" idea for know and move over to Mati's thread. (At which point I will pick up the telos thread again - the future - what is right and what is not, about Bo's historical thesis - in Mati's thread.) Ian On 7/16/08, Christoffer Ivarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > From: "Ian Glendinning" > > > > > 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.) > > > > > Maybe I missed something - would you indulge me and re-post your arguments > against my case - outlined? > > > A pity you didn't address Mati's points in his thread, where I had > > already replied separately. > > > > What points? The one about language? > > > 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. > > > > Well, I don't think I did that, I thought that I should clarify what I meant > - ant that that was being called for - but please, post your arguments > aginast what I said (as outlined as you can) and I will think about it and > get back to you > > Best Regards > > Christoffer > > > > > > 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-?-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/
