Hi Andre, taking a break again...
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > John to Andre: > According to the MoQ, intellect should rrule society - but this is plainly > impossible. The only way intellect can rule over social patterns is within > the mind of an individual... > > Andre: > I fail to understand what you are trying to say here John. The attempt at > intellectual supremacy over social patterns is the story of the 20th > Century and it is continuing to this day. To say that the intellectual > supremacy over social patterns is 'plainly impossible' is an indication of > this battle. It suggests that the social driving forces of fame,fortune and > glory (celebrity and 'greed is good')still appear to be dominating. And you > suggest that it should be so. > J: I think that this is a common misunderstanding - the levels competing with each other. Intellectual patterns do not compete with social patterns and never have. More intellectually-oriented societies compete with less intellectually-oriented societies but all competition is social. Intellect is objective and does not pick sides. The objective anthropologists is not an observer of primitive societies in order to overcome them and in fact he works to preserve them whole. Intellect, per se, does not clash with the social order but intellectual individuals try and make a new social order that overcomes the old. It seems a trite point unless you really think about it but the patterns are largely discreet. The mechanisms through which they interact is more of a code of art than any "competition". Andre: > But there are compelling forces, from the (in)organic and the intellectual > showing that the current dominant social values adhered to will inevitably > lead to a destabilization of (in)organic values that will destabilize > social forces to such an extent that its own base will be severely > weakened. An Moq perspective will show that this is due to the notion that > the intellectual pattern appointed to take over society i.e. science, has a > defect in it. This is so because it has no provision for morals. (You know > the story). > It seems to me that the MoQ perspective i.e. its expanded intellectual > value system shows that we do not need to go down the cataclysmic path the > Victorian social system went to i.e the First World War with its half > million rotting corpses in one battle alone! > J: I would agree that we don't have to, but it seems that we will anyway. We are headed in that direction. Let's take one prime example - climate change. Science shows us that the climate changes - the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling due to the sun's dynamic variance. The American West has just gone through a centruy of peak wetness and it's to be expected that that is all going to change a matter of course, like it has in the past but instead of adapting in all the common sense ways in which it's possible to live a good life on less wasted water, i.e., flushing toilets with grey water, capturing rain run-off, etc. but instead all the hype is toward reducing carbon emissions - which doesn't do anything to effect the sun. And even then, with all the hype, we haven't achieved any significant reduction in atmospheric CO2 and with China and India working their butts off to increase their standard of living (consumption of power) to match Western standards, we aren't going to in the near future. This amount of self-delusion is insupportable in the long run and the long run has just about run out. Andre: > > Intellect shows that our current progress i.e. (as an example): economic > growth at all cost, will inevitably lead to its own downfall. The battle is of course that the > environmentalists are ridiculed, the notion of the warming of the earth is > ridiculed, the silencing of the economists, university professors, > researchers and the like who DO carry a moral agenda as well... are placed > in the box of 'alternatives' because they are placed outside of the > mainstream of this debate. But they are very much part of this battle of > supremacy. > > And this is NOT only possible 'within the mind of an individual'. You are > personalizing all the patterns the MoQ talks about. Forget Lila (as a > person), forget Rigel (as a person), forget Phaedrus (as a person). They > all represent values of the differing levels...the differing > perspectives...the highest being inclusive of all the others. > > J: that sounds right - "the highest inclusive". Note then that the highest is not competitive with all the others nor antagonistic toward those "below". > John: > > who is trying to be objective. > > Andre: > There is no such thing as 'objective' when talking about the social or > intellectual levels. > > J: All objects conceptualized are now concepts. I can't imaging being intellectual without conceptualization but maybe you mean something different by "objective". > John: > > The minute that individual tries to rule over any other person or society > we are at the level of social conflict again. > > Andre: > See my earlier comment about 'personalizing' values. > > John: > > more questions, that's what. The more hypothesis you have, the more you > generate. > > Andre: > From a SOM perspective...yes...there will be no end to it. > > John: > > And if you ask me what reality is, well it's a value! So sure, the > argument goes in a bit of a circle but then everything does. > > Andre: > Here we differ John.'Reality' is not a value. It's the ground from which > values are abstracted. J: Whoa nelly! This sounds like Ham's position. I thought the MoQ taught that Reality is derived from Value, not the other way around. > This 'ground' is ineffable. It is the 'undifferentiated aesthetic > continuum', the void, emptiness, Quality. The end and the beginning of a > circle and not an end nor beginning...throw the whole tetralemma on it. > > It just is. > I'm sorry, I use "Value" as a synonym for Quality, also. I think it's important to remember that Value is just as much a High Quality concept as Quality is a high value one. John 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
