Hi Mati, et al, I did answer all the questions directly in my first response - later posts did discuss other specific points with others. I hope you can distill a summary of concensus and differences - it will be useful. I think the points of difference are relatively few and (now) well articulated in one thread. Great job. (Need to address your latest scenario.)
DMB, is that you suggesting Pirsig's words are final and not open to discussion and improvement ? Oh, and did I see the word "governance" in Arlo's response ?- so much good stuff happening at once. Can't keep up with it all. Ian On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 9:07 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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? Please provide examples of both intellectual > and social values and share how your definitions of each level are able to > clearly discern the levels. > > I'll preface my answer by saying that looking at this distinction as > "collective-individual" or "conformity-freedom" is wrong. IMO, the social > level > is defined by collaborated human activity mediated by a shared symbolic > system. > Intellectual patterns emerge from human collective activity when the symbols > that mediate the social level are treated as objects of inquiry in-and-of > themselves. > > For example, "major league baseball" is a social pattern of value, but this > bird's eye view captures not some automatic or blindly collective pattern of > value, but the sum total of willful, free, agenic activity of individuals > (from > players, to fans, to management, to park employees, to merchandising, to > announcers, etc. who's personal value decisions lead them to mediate their > behavior using a shared symbolic code. > > But make no mistake, intellectual patterns are no less about capturing the > agenic collective symbolically-mediated behaviors of humans. "Mathematics" is > an intellectual pattern of value, but this bird's eye view also capture the > willful, free, agenic activiy of individuals whose personal value decisions > lead them to mediate their behavior using a shared symbolic code. No "one > individual" does math any more (or any less) than "one individual" does > baseball. > > Both "mathematics" and "baseball" have rules that constrain participants, but > in both systems the rules are flexible and change as challenges are made. Both > evolve from the collective participation of many. Those who engage in playing > baseball or doing mathematics do so because they find Quality in such > activity. > That's right, both social and intellectual patterns result from human > activity. > They are both abstract ways of looking down and this activity and trying to > mark boundaries around what distinguishes that activity from other activities. > > Again, the key distinction for me is whether the activity forms around using a > shared symbolic code to mediate behavior or the consideration of social > symbols > are objects or inquiry themselves. Humans negotiating the use of a particular > sound to describe an optic experience, "blue", demonstrates a social level of > value. As social values increased in complexity, humans started asking "what > is > blueness really?" and that shift from using a symbol to mediate behavior to > considering the symbol as a real object in-itself is what demarks the > social/intellectual divide. > > 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 > and how intellectual level changed or remained the same over time. > > I don't think its possible to point to one time and say "at this moment humans > began considering their symbols as objects of inquiry". It certainly began > long > before the trend placed such activity as a dominant behavior. I'd say that it > likely began only after the social language reached a sufficient complexity to > sustain such reflective meta-cognition. > > 3. It seems clear that both social and intellectual levels use language, > but in different ways. Please describe how each level utilizes language to > sustain its level? > > Yes, both the social and intellectual levels are mediated by language. Again, > the distinction is, for me, that the intellectual level is reflexive on this > language, that is it is activity that considers the symbols of language as > object of inquiry in-and-of themselves. On the social level humans negotiate a > "word" for a particular pattern of their experiences, "horse" for example. On > the intellectual level, humans consider "horseness" rather than the > biological, > "real-world" pattern this symbol points to. On the social level, humans > negotiate symbols to mark "quantity" such as "one" or "three". On the > intellectual level, humans negotiate the abstract symbols of "oneness" and > "threeness" apart from their use as object-modifiers. > > 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? > > In the simplest way, I'd say that intellectual patterns inform social > activity. > A society's reflections on "race" informs how that society will (or should) > frame their social activity regarding racial variations. Resistance occurs > when > the reflections identity something "wrong" with the way things have been done. > Mathematics was a "quiet" evolution of intellect informing social behavior. > But > astronomy was not because it led to the conclusion that our activity around > our > symbols was in err (placing the earth as the hub of the universe, for > example). > In the past, "intellect" would secure its role dominating social activity only > when, because of a high-degree of Quality, the social world could no longer > ignore them. The King, as it were, could not stop the eventual re-structuring > of society as it became informed by astronomy, cartography, etc. > > In modern times we have moved towards a system of governance responsive to the > direct control of society (rather than the eventual restructuring following > evolving informedness) by intellectual reflections. But this has formed a > complex morass of special interests, power struggles, propaganda machines and > organized resistances. It may be that this morass is a necessary historical > step on the way to an intellectual-governed society, or it may be that human > populations will never attain this, that we are forever bound by the needs and > wants of social power, social status and social wealth (all forms of symbolic > social capital). I'd argue that this is a historical transition point, not an > "end" we are in, and whether we move towards intellectual governance or not is > entirely unknown. > > My thoughts anyways, sorry for the length. > > > 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/
