RED wrote:
So just to clarify, I don't think the intellect is preoccupied with society, quite the
opposite, I think intellect completely ignores society and is simply going about its
own business of making society redundant.
Kenneth Replied:
Hi Richard,
In my opinion anyway, I think you outline in your post what happens now- adays in
modern democracies.
That is Intellect = Politics = Avant-Garde = Aristocratic
Social = Ethnical = Kitch = Masses
RED:
Hi Kenneth, thanks for a fascinating mail, I hadn�t seen this theory before and it
certainly made me think. I do have a few concerns though and while I may well be
arguing with an established theory, if I�m wrong to argue at least I�ll learn
something!
Kenneth:
The ' problem ' you seem to evocate is IMO not that Intellect ignores society, but
that society is making herself redundant due to the Intellect which she applies for
going about her business.
RED:
I�m not sure I full understand what you are saying here but the impression I get is
that IYO my view is not that the intellect ignores society but that society is making
ITSELF redundant. I hope that isn�t what I have been saying, as my view is the exact
opposite. I think that intellect DOES ignore society and the formulation of the new
ideas from the intellect leaves the society redundant, as there is nothing within
society to compete with the new laws. My view is that society has no dice to role, no
moves to play as intellect is calling the shots, and only at times when society
threatens a full over-throwing of intellectual ruling does the intellect have to
listen. Further to this, I think society is only able to threaten such action as we
are still in the transitory period between society ruling and intellect ruling.
K:
de Tocqeville: - People want their freedom, but on the other hand people are
following all the others. Man can 't reject the one and the other and therefor he ties
himself in knots to satisfied both notions.
R:
Kenneth, I�m not sure whether you mean man as in singular (in which case I totally
disagree), or whether you mean man as the collection (in which case I still disagree
but can see the reasoning behind such an argument). If you view it as a collection of
men then yes at the moment there are groups who want their freedom and there are
groups who want to follow, but that is only in the static frame. 3/4/500 years ago
there was no such split, there were two classes, the peasants and the aristocracy and
it remained this was for a LONG time, never changing. Then as the Victorian society
began to collapse, the new freedom fighters came about and they have been growing in
numbers since. If we extend the trend by 200 years, I think you�ll find that the vast
majority of the population is grouped together in huge cities while neighbours don�t
communicate and everyone looks after their own interests. Viewed statically, your
argument holds water, looked at dynamically, I don�t think it does. Just my opinion,
of course! :o)
K:
So man invented a centralized power-system and as a palliative man comfort himself
with the thought he has chosen his own lectures.
R:
There has always been a centralized power-system. In days of old this was a ruling
monarchy who governed society as they saw fit. As the Victorian values began to
decline, personal freedom flourished and the old system of government stopped working.
This is the transition from monarchy to democracy, which I suppose is what you mean
by centralized power-system. My view is that theirs always been such a thing, but as
the values of civilization has changed, the face of this power-system has changed as
well, at first there was tribe leader, then a despot, then a monarchy finally a
democracy.
K:
People, here the Masses, are stupid and utterly narrow-minded.
R:
Because of failing in education, which is a failing of society. Why don�t some people
study? �Because it�s not cool, man�. Change that view, show them the rewards and
they�ll surprise you, Kenneth!!
K:
For the sake, as they see it, of Equality they place a Intellectual System above it
all ( Politics) by which " they " rule what the community really wants.
R:
They don�t place it there, it�s already there, they just see no need to challenge it.
If a system works, why get rid of it?
K:
But, like de Tocqeville said 200 years ago and you do mention, the Intellect makes
everything and everybody equal in such a way that noone is more than one other.
R:
You say that like it�s a bad thing, Kenneth. :o)
K:
What is left is a society like ours today, the Intellect is running loose with no one
to guide it but herself.
R:
As far as I am aware, the only thing able to control another thing is something that
is more powerful. Thus, organic systems rule inorganic ones (caveman�s adaptation to
surroundings), society can rule organic systems (as it did in the Victorian age), and
intellect can rule over society (as it is now doing). The only thing higher than
intellectual value is a dynamic value, and since dynamic value is constantly changing
in the manner it sees fit, then that fits the boundaries of as �intellect running
loose� as it guided by something you cannot see. We are simple organic values
systems, we cannot understand the evolutionary path of the intellect so maybe we just
need to trust it, and comment on it? Again, just my view.
K:
The problems of such societies are found on the narrow margian between Intellect and
Social, between Avant- garde and Kitch, between what we could call the High Culture
and the Low Culture. Those divisions are found throughout society and on every level.
To solve the problem, as I see it, we need to give the individual a new and
fundamental bias wherein both, that is Avant- garde and Kitch are combined. That is,
in a sense is each of us a fundamentalist...that is we are searching for a fundament
by which we can express " That is I ".
R:
I think, in a very simplistic way, we already have such a fundament. It is the
fundament of wealth. Bare with me on this, I�ll explain myself a bit more. As you
say above, the intellect leads to politics, which leads to government. Government can
govern, as it is richer than any one part of civilization. If, for example, the
income of a corporation exceeded that of the government, who is really in power? So,
the government needs to keep increasing its income to continue in power. There are
two main sources of income for government, 1 is corporation tax on the corporations,
and the 2nd is income tax. Therefore, the simplest was for a government to stay in
power is to make the corporations rich, make the citizens rich and thus both are
content in paying taxes.
Where�s this going?�
The fundament is that people want to be rich as they would rather have the avant-garde
than the kitch and again, I think the reason you have a concern over the process is
that you are looking at the present static frame where there is equal numbers of rich
and impoverished people (in developed nations) which clouds your view. Hundreds of
years ago, the vast majority of wealth was held in a few households so if we again
continue the trend, we see an increase the general wealth, and since you can never be
too rich, this provides the driving force of the new form of society we are getting
and also provides backbone to the new power-system being created. People will continue
to give faith to the new pwer-system, and the numbers supporting it will continue as
the new power-system promises to make them (if not rich then) well off and people like
the idea of that! Again, just my view, and maybe a controversial one???
K:
Nowadays, the fundaments are religion, nation, color of our skin, belief, work, social
class, nationality, ethical values,...etc.
R:
You missed wealth, perhaps the most important one?
K:
What I see in memetics, is that IMO, it can act as the bias whereout we can drawn our
INDIVIDUALITY, and secondly, I believe memetics can act as the bias for such a society
as mentioned as above. I believe that memetics can act as the bias for a new
philosophy and why not as the very basic for a new metaphysics.
R:
I joined the group late and am not aware of memetics or what they are about, and while
could hazard a guess from the spelling, I think it would be unwise to do so! Maybe
you�d be kind enough to enlighten me?? :o)
K:
Just a thought,
R:
And an extremely interesting one at that! Thank you Kenneth, I hope I haven�t
questioned things that there is no need to question!
Kind regards
Richard
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
