good points, Ian, Craig,
Ian: > > > The paradox is that having conceptualised a high quality intellectual > idea / pattern, (using intellectual "freedom") it needs to be realized > in the lower levels (or remain forever conceptual). That realization > through the social level then depends on being able to "dominate" > other social patterns using things that look less like "freedom" and > more like "authority" backed by "force" and it starts to look more > like a social pattern, even though it originated in intellect. John: In every example of human society I've ever seen or heard about, the two levels are intertwined. But I agree completely that social patterns are conceptualized intellectually, and intellect originates new ones to replace outworn modes. But what kind of intellect is actually doing the origination? I argue that its the romantic side of intellect, it's the artist, the novelist, the dramatist and the movie producer. These intellectuals of the Romantic side of the dichotomy get a sense or a feeling about what would be good, and when they produce what is good, it becomes socially accepted and THEN the classically oriented intellectuals get ahold of it and examine and define and explain. Pirsig explicates this pattern when he talks about the futility of teaching rhetorical quality by following rules. And this is why I think the term "intellectual" alone is an inadequate label for the 4th level of being. It leaves out the leading edge - the aesthetic - the artistic sense that knows beyond definition what is good. Ian: > The > distinction between intellectual and social patterns is not in doubt > BUT HOW a culture "manages" its socialization of its intellect whilst > preserving the freedoms its intellect requires (ie governance) is the > real issue. It is almost all about limitations to freedoms. > > What we realize is that freedom is fundamental to social and intellectual evolution. Without the all-important freedom to create and reject, any system of governance falls into stagnation and decay. Which is the main reason that there is no Soviet Union today. And since Capitalism has evolved into a similar static dead-end, with big corporate interests now manipulating the culture to their own self-perpetuation, why there won't be a United States tomorrow unless some vital revolution occurs. > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:56 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > "...a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values > > over social values is absolutely superior to one that does not." > > (Pirsig, Lila, p.311) > > > > . > > IMHO the 2 important questions that this quote raises are: > > 1) would a free culture that supports the dominance of intellectual > > values over social values be superior to an authoritarian culture > > that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social values & > > 2) would a free a culture be more likely than an authoritarian culture > > to support the dominance of intellectual values over social values. > > > > Craig > > > John: My answers would then be: 1) Yes 2) yes 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/md/archives.html
