In addition to this I would like to ask Andre a question: Andre Broersen wrote: > I have argued in previous posts that a socialist doctrine, no > matter how highly worked out intellectually, belongs with social PoV's. Chris asks: Why?
Hi Chris, sorry to respond so late. There is some fierce debating going on, have been rather busy of late and before you know it another 12 Issues of Discuss are waiting... . Anyway, yes, going back to Oct 6 or 7 I argued: "My reasoning went as follows:governments are social PoV's and I therefore place what they do (eg distributing collected taxes) and allocating these to infrastructures, education,welfare, science etc, etc by developng policies, programs and allocating monies. These need to be thought through, carefully planned etc,etc..." Now, there is nothing 'abstract' about this, (given Pirsig's guideline on 'the greatest meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is confined to the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no corresponding particular experience and which behave according to rules of their own"[see letter to Paul Turner]) it seems to me quite , for want of a better word, concrete. Many people on this Discuss disagree. Yes, Govts. are social patterns of value but what they DO, ie GOVERNING (!) belongs to the intellectual level. This is a little confusing and as yet it has not been completely resolved.It also goes back to TLS. If language is a Soc. PoV, (language is an abstraction to begin with...it describes experience but is not itself the experience),then where does it belong? Does this mean that when I talk to my neighbour, over a nice cold beer, about the weather, or that I need to take the bus to buy a fridge...is this not intellectual stuff? But when Govt. talks about climate and infrastructure and providing susidies to some businesses that are in trouble financially (so that I can take the bus and can buy that fridge) is that intellectual stuff? Where, essentially lies the difference? In my attempt at clarification I suggested a concept to distinguish between 'social chatting' and 'intellectualising' or rather:that mode of thinking that clearly belongs at the intellectual level ( In Pirsig's words 'you have to cut it of somewhere') :social level thinking (SLT's). That is; SLT refers to the skilled manipulation of social PoV's, and these then include economics, social theories about how to organise society (all the 'isms' if you like) etc,etc. This would make the intellectual level quite a lonely place to be in. Anyway Chris, I do not think it is easily resolved. But this was my reasoning. And following Pirsig who so eloquently says it somewhere: This is no Papal Bull and for some it is just plain bull and for me there are no dogma's. Hope it helps somewhat. Andre 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/
