John, Intellect only leaves out the aesthetic leading edge IF we adopt some limited dumb SOMist idea of what intellect is.
Ian On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:18 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > 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
