[MD] Food for Thought

[ian glendinning]

Arlo, absolutely ...

You said
I think again it's a distinction between high and low quality
intellectual patterns, not social and intellectual patterns.

I say I completely agree with you, it's exactly what I was trying to
illustrate, by leading through the alternative attempts at ways of
expressing it.

The problem is the MoQ "Social vs Intellectual" levels suddenly cease
to be a useful distinction in what makes these (both intellectual)
patterns high or low quality.

I've been wrestling with the "so if that doesn't, what does" question
for about 2 years. "Falsifiable rationale is better than unquestioning
faith as the basis of an intellectual pattern" is a rough and ready
indicator, but it begs loads of questions. (That is 2 years post-MoQ
of course; to DMB's chagrin, I've been 10 years on the quest, that
falisfiable, objective, logical-postivist, reductionist, materialist
view of "science" is not the definitve answer for the high-quality end
of that scale - long before I'd heard of MoQ, or would give a theist
or mystic even the time of day - it was just the best evolved answer
to come out of the enlightenment.)

In fact it resolves almost to "the examined life (pattern of mental
behaviour)" is better - where the quality of the "examination" becomes
the determinant, and I think the reason we keep drifting back to the
social / collective vs individual / intellect confusion is precisely
because the examination involves "self-conscious will" rather than
"received authoritative wisdom".

(Hence my dive down the free-will alley to avoid imposed authority.)

The MoQ is still the right (static / dynamic) framework, and Quality
the right (non-SOMist) metaphor, but there is definitely something
"wrong" with levels 3 & 4.

I think you're right to make the distinction between "a (conceptual)
pattern believed", and the "belief (intentionality) in a pattern" - I
think that's all the social (action) vs intellectual (thought)
distinction is really about.

Ian

On 12/15/06, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [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.
>
>
> 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/
>