[MD] Individual v Collective

[ian glendinning]

Mark ... I meant in the simple ordinal sense ... so there we agree.

All I would add is that you do seem to understand perfectly what I
mean (and I you so far as I can tell) ... you just seem to get picky
about my choice of words, and I'm just less concerned about that
point. That's not a matter of agreement. Just an observation.

Ian

On 8/20/06, Squonkonguitar at aol.com <Squonkonguitar at aol.com> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> This was the bit which I paraphrased as you making the point  about
> "intellectual meaning"
> [QUOTE]
> The Social aesthetic is a  relationship between your values and the  current
> social conventions  (values). This is social meaning.
> The Intellectual aesthetic is a  relationship between your values and the
> current intellectual conventions.  This is intellectual meaning.
> Value come first - meaning is an intellectual  pattern of ambiguous nature ...
> [UNQUOTE]
>
> Mark: Hello Ian. I am experiencing difficulty following what you are  saying.
> I can read and understand my own statement, but where is your paraphrase
> please? I can't follow what you are saying.
>
> Ian: Elsewhere in the recent  response you accused me of getting hung up on
> the intellectual habit of  needing "definitions".
>
> Mark: let us leave accusations to the law courts please? I did not accuse
> you of anything; i pointed out that definitions are within the realm of
> intellectual patterns according to the MoQ. This can be supported.
>
> Ian: Touche. That is in
> fact a large part of the point I was making to  you ... being hung up
> on a precise definition of social vs intellectual ....  and warning
> against it :-) An unnecessary split, etc.
>
> Mark: From my last post: The difference is an empirical observation. The
> behaviour
> of the social level wasn't deduced, it was observed to be  so.
> If you wish to deduce a definition you are confined to the  intellectual
> level of symbolic manipulation.
> Mark: Social patterns are not defined, they are observed to be: 'behaviour
> which is transmitted via imitation.'
> Biological selection isn't defined either. There is no definition of why
> partners select each other.
> Inorganic relationships are well modelled by geometric relationships, but  as
> observation progresses the models have become ever more crazy (String theory,
>  quantum chaos, etc.)
> The difference between the social and intellectual levels is one between
> that which is deduced and that which is observed.
> The MoQ advances rational deductive methodology by introducing DQ and an
> aesthetic appreciation of deduction as an art.
> When this move is made, the intellectual level is aligned with the other
> levels because one may also speak of a social art.
> Art aims at Quality and Quality has no splits.
>
> Ian: Anyway in that  final piece ... I thing we get to the crux ... it's the
> order it happens ie  social before intellectual ... value before
> meaning.
> Will you let me agree with you on that?
> I'm sure any disagreement can only be in definitions of words ;-)
>
> Mark: Disagreement is a matter of opposing values.
> Values may come into opposition outside the intellectual level. There  are no
> definitions outside the intellectual level, but there are sure as hell
> values, and when they come into opposition there can be trouble. Piss the
> neighbour off playing your Fernandes along to Rush at 3 a.m. too regular  and see what
> happens?
> Words don't come into it; the neighbour may be Icelandic and speak not a  jot
> of English, but there may be trouble all the same.
> It is the business of the intellectual to explore the relationship between
> social imitation and intellectual manipulation.
> I suggest the intellectual is legitimate when it defines the social as  a
> non-defined realm of imitated behaviour. And i don't see a problem with the
> suggestion that the non-defined pre-existed the definitional. I don't see a
> problem with the definitional attempting to define that which existed before the
> definitional.
> That's evolution at work maybe? I mean, sociologists here will be quick to
> whip out their phase diagrams? They can't be arrested you for it.
>
> Ian: I think all I was suggesting, in these terms, was that whilst one  may
> come before the other in a primary experience sense ...  "we
> westerners" jump into the intellectual level so fast ...  present
> company excepted ... that the gap is marginal and they are  quite
> tangled up in everyday socio-cultural-intellectual patterns.
>
> Mark: The jump is an observation. The explanation of the jump is  post-jump.
> A margin, of what ever width, has a well defined break. That's what a  margin
> is. You use the term 'Marginal' here to convey: 'not valued enough  to be
> bothered with.'
> You then impose you own term, 'socio-cultural-intellectual' (a term not  seen
> in this thread before) to justify your argument.
>
> Ian: (And of course the value in e-mails is very hard to get at without  a
> little intellectual interpretation unless we're going to quote poetry
> at  each other. Did I mention Cornflowers ... ?)
>
> Mark: Your e-mail's are highly intellectual. Your e-mail's are some of  the
> highest intellectual e-mail's on this site. I wish i knew what they  meant?
>
> Ian: You are saying the social "interaction" aesthetic is more  primary than
> the intellectual "interpretation" aesthetic ... Yes ?
> I  wouldn't argue with you on that.
> Ian
>
> Mark: The term 'Prime' is an interesting one. Qualitatively speaking prime
> is best (a prime cut of Beef went into this sausage). As intellectual  values
> have moral authority over social patterns i  suppose intellectual patterns are
> prime contra to your  suggestion. Social patterns are prime only in an ordinal
> sense. In an  ordinal sense you would appear to agree that Hydrogen is more
> primary than  Charles Dickens. I wouldn't argue with you on that.
> Love,
> Mark
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>