[MD] Individual v Collective

[ian glendinning]

BTW Mark, to quote DMB from his most recent post... the reason I often
point out when we seem to be arguing about words, and I'd rather we
didn't, is because ...

"The name that can be named is not the true name." Lao Tzu

(Ultimately the words can only get in the way.)

In many ways, I find your methodical, well structured arguments, more
intellectual than we really need :-) Paradoxically you find me overly
intellectual. Loopy old world.
Regards
Ian


On 8/20/06, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
> >
>