[MD] Intellectual activity

[David M]

Arlo

I might say that society enables SQ to be
retained or to endure (culture), individuals are a source of
DQ and enable new SQ to emerge, society is not a
source of DQ, only a means to retain SQ, i.e. a means
to build levels, in so far as the individual is what she is via
SQ she depends on society, as a source of DQ she is
independent of society, but society helps raise the individual
to a new level on which to bring forth new SQ (i.e. as source
of DQ).

How's that?


DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arlo J. Bensinger" <ajb102 at psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 2:04 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Intellectual activity


> Hi SA,
>
> [SA]
> I have mentioned at times an individual level for the intellectual level. 
> Platt
> has too.  I do not argue against the mythos over logos understanding. 
> Therefore
> the societal level evolves into the individual intellect.
>
> [Arlo]
> Sounds like Platt found a compatriot, or at least a sympatico. I'm on the 
> other
> side of the fence here, SA, and I'll explain the way I see it.
>
> "Intellectual patterns" emerge over historical time out of collective 
> activity
> on the social level. The Law of Gravity, for example, has emerged out of 
> the
> historical-physics dialogue dating back centuries, with new voices adding,
> mutating, shaping and reforming the pattern as it exists at any one 
> "snapshot"
> in time.
>
> Now, I do agree that it is from the social level that the individual you
> consider "you" emerges (apart from the biological patterns). Your 
> "identity",
> as it were, is a social construction, based on assimilations of the
> linguaculture (which includes, of course, macro-cultural patterns 
> (argument as
> war) and micro-cultural patterns in every decreasing circles down to local
> negotiations).
>
> However, this "identity" represents the point of contact between social 
> and
> intellectual patterns. Intellectual patterns, then, infiltrate social 
> patterns
> through the "individual" (identity), and collective activity of these
> "individuals" gives rise to intellectual patterns over historical time.
>
> This challenge to the supremeity of the individual is met always with 
> cries of..
> well, you'll see. To some, one has to choose between either accepting the
> Individual as Supreme, or casting the "individual" into the meaningless 
> pit of
> devaluation. Please note that I disagree, fundamentally, with this 
> dichotomy.
> Rather than focus on the individual or the collective, I prefer to find 
> value
> in their dialectical relation, and how from this dialectical relation, we 
> see
> evolution in both the intellectual and social levels of the MOQ. (Indeed, 
> I'd
> argue that it is nonsensical to even attempt to separate the "individual" 
> from
> the "collective". Who am we? We am me!)
>
> [SA]
> Yet, I also see it the other way around.  The individual depends on the 
> societal
> mythos to gain static definition to the intellectual level of each 
> individual
> person.
>
> [Arlo]
> This is similar to the dialectical relation between I and C. I find no 
> arguement
> with this. I suppose it comes down to what you define as an "intellectual
> pattern" (an "individual" on the intellectual level). I define it as the
> negotiated symbolic-metaphorical relations that emerge over historical 
> time by
> individuals engaged in collective activity. If you define an intellectual
> pattern as "the identity that is SA", then we have different starting 
> points.
>
> [SA]
> The intellect of any one individual person may view something very 
> differently
> than the rest of society and even bring certain changes to the societal 
> mythos
> - the brujo discussion by Pirsig.
>
> [Arlo]
> I agree. This is why I call linguaculture "structurating" and not 
> deterministic
> or causal. But, let's recall that the brujo was not arguing for reform, he 
> was
> peeping in windows and getting publically drunk. In this case, there is 
> not
> "agentic action" on the part of the brujo, it is only others, afterwards, 
> who
> reconsider his value and role, who become part of the cultural dialogue 
> shaping
> his culture, that begin, and foster, what emerges as social change. The 
> brujo
> does nothing alone. It is the collective, cultural dialogue adapting to
> negotiated value differences, that "causes" the evolution of the social
> patterns.
>
> [SA]
> I notice societal mythos defining the intellectual level.  Also, I notice 
> the
> intellectual individual defining the societal level.
>
> [Arlo]
> Again, similiar perhaps to what I call dialectical relatedness, but I'd 
> word
> this somewhat differently. The societal mythos interacts with the 
> intellectual
> level through "individuals", who themselves emerge out of collective 
> social
> activity, and through whom intellectual value penetrates social patterns.
> "Identity", then is the point of contact between collective social 
> activity and
> historically-negotiated intellectual patterns.
>
>
> Arlo
> 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/
>