John said:
There is a logic to the fact that the only way to intellectually resist social
pressure is individually.
Arlo replied:
...Your conflation of intellectual and individual does not recognize that
'individuals' and 'collectives' exist on all of the MOQ's levels. It's simply a
matter of the focus of your lens. Also, keep in mind that 'activity' is through
a collectively mediated symbolic structure that ONLY emerges through this
social level of value. ...And, rather than 'thinking for yourself' I'd say
'participating in intellectual discourses'. Intellectuality, and sociality are
active processes that occur within an 'individual/collective' milieu.
Intellectuality, specifically, as Bakhtin argued, is a 'ventriologuated'
activity; done though the appropriation of the voices of others, projecting
towards an anticipated audience of future voices, and delivered within a
culturally-salient semiotic-social media. As Siouxsie Sioux sang, "even when
we're on our own, we are never all alone, when we're singing."
dmb says:
Well said, Arlo.
The individual who stands alone in defiance of "society" is a cool American
myth. We see it in Western movies, Ayn Rand "novels" and Pirsig's Phaedrus taps
into it too. But it's a very bad way to read the distinction between the social
and intellectual levels of morality and I think that very few philosophers
would take it seriously as a description of intellectual activity. Like Pirsig
says, an alternative way to describe an insane person is a person with their
own culture, a culture of one. Like morality and language, it's only ever
needed and only makes sense when there is more than one person.
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
