heya, > Gav said: > ...any intellectual pattern we all agree on becomes social! > - SCIENCE IS PREDOMINANTLY A SOCIAL PATTERN. the intellect > is there to guide the (individual) will towards DQ. this > completes the existentialist ethic, and sits well with > schopenhauer too. > > dmb says: > I gotta disagree there. I don't think science is social > or that any intellectual pattern becomes social. Some > intellectual patterns become a mainstream part of the > culture, sure, but they don't get demoted for that. > That just means they're widely known. And science > requires all kind of social institutions, it needs funding, > there are probably plenty of "sell-outs" who do it > just for the money and it is otherwise dependent on the > social level, but science itself, doesn't get demoted > for all that. Even with all it's flaws, science is > essentially a formal quest for knowledge based on > experience. I think that's the basic spirit of the > MOQ's intellect too. It is meant to guide future > experience, but I'm not so sure intellect is the best > guide toward DQ. You know, they kill it with koans and such > cause it gets in the way.
gav: koans are intellectual. the intellectual level is more dynamic than the social level. the intellectual level is the level of the (authentic) individual. the purpose of (jaynian) consciousness (which i propose as being the intellect), is to release the individual from social control. science is part of this liberation but the more established a truth, scientific or otherwise, the more social it is. intellectual truths are more dynamic than social truths. who can argue that darwinism has to some extent become *social* darwinism, literally. the more an intellectual truth is reified - the more static it becomes - the more it misrepresents the original insight...by definition: ie the more literal a truth the less true it is. i say science is predominantly social because it operates on the basis of unconscious assumptions and it lives through collaboration and consensus. science is more open to the dynamic than religion, it is generally more intellectual, though i am sure the subtle insights of some spiritual traditions carry at least as much intellectual value...and really how do we differentiate...? science means 'knowledge', and knowledge, in this sense, means static knowledge. it does not refer to existential knowledge - 'know thyself'. but the intellects very purpose is this existential knowledge. it is the raison d'etre of philosophy - and philosophy is intellectual. any 'formal' quest is enshrined in form (sq) Dq is formless. anyway i will let this off and get back to you later if anything springs up. whilst we are still arguing about who is right/wrong we are down the social end of intellect (if u get my drift). higher intellect transcends adversarial dichotomies. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Time for vacation? WIN what you need- enter now! > http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jlyhm > 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/ Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online experience. www.yahoo7.com.au 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/
