[MD] Food for Thought

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Ian]
You simply see some patterns of belief as social patterns and some as
intellectual patterns. But you are making that judgement on the basis of an
intellectual pattern you hold.

[Arlo]
Actually, no. But you reworded this in a way that make me back up. "Belief", as
in the "act of believing", I see as a "social pattern", as it is a form of
human activity. The object of that belief, the "idea" or "thought", I see as an
"intellectual pattern". To restate, I believe (social pattern) in the Law of
Gravity (intellectual pattern).

The "idea of god", then, is to me a low-quality intellectual pattern, for the
reasons I've been working through with Craig, but I can't say that the "idea of
god" is a social pattern, while other ideas are intellectual. You see? This is
my problem with some of the terminology surrounding the S/I levels.

[Ian]
I think the "authority is a social concept" .... is going to prove a key point.
(I just don't think you'll have such an easy time saying this maps easily to a
simplistic religion vs science conclusion - they are all belief systems.)

[Arlo]
Perhaps, but I don't think that its as simple as saying "social patterns are the
result of authority". NASCAR, for example, is a good example of a social
pattern. And yet it does not derive from authority. It results from individuals
working collectively towards a specific activity (driving really fast in
circles... and drinking beer.) So while social patterns are often governed by
obedience to a social power structure, this isn't (as I see it) the key
distinction between S/I patterns.

Also, it suggests that "disobedience" is the earmark for "intellectual
patterns". But I don't see that. Just try to disobey the law of gravity! It
also elevates, as Platt seems to want to do, being a drunkard and a peeping tom
to being "intellectual". (I guess the next step is an "academic bill of rights"
for drunkards and peeping toms).

[Ian]
I think the key thing will prove to be whether the control / freedoms of those
belief systems are phsyical (action by authority) or mental (communication)

[Arlo]
I think this is perhaps similar to what I've been saying in differentiating high
and low quality intellectual ideas, rather than social and intellectual
"ideas". That is, intellectual patterns that depend on social force are
low-quality intellectual patterns, because they suffocate DQ on the social
level. 

[Ian]
In the later case, an "authority" on a subject can make all the pronouncements
he likes, but it is intellectual if I am physically allowed to ignore him and
follow my own thoughts. THIS IS THE KEY. It is social if society's arrangements
for governance allow him to "impose" that authority.

[Arlo]
Well, I agree with you in part. I think again its a distinction between high and
low quality intellectual patterns, not social and intellectual patterns. So I'd
say the "idea of god" is a low quality intellectual pattern precisely because
it depends on a huge amount fo social force and power to promulgate itself.