[MD] Neoconservatism

[Heather Perella]

Hey Platt, 


     Platt said:  "Your explanation of the conflict
between the social and intellectual levels (collective
vs. individual) is confusing to me. I interpret it to
mean that society determines what intellectual thought
patterns are acceptable. If society says the world is
flat, then for all intents and purposes the world is
flat. It seems to me just the 
opposite. What makes the intellectual level separate
and distinct from 
the social level are the thought patterns that go
against the 
prevailing cultural view. Wasn't that the point of the
brujo story? 

     This is exactly what I am saying.  You give a
fine explanation here, and I agree with you.  Yes,
that's exactly what I thought the brujo story meant. 
Then there's the other side of the story, the
collective side.  I understand the collective side to
mean all the pieces and explanations to come up with
any intellectual level could be fit together by an
individual, yet, those pieces and explanations come
from society.  The individual puts them together, yet,
the thought pattern on the intellectual level made by
the individual, are thought patterns pieced together
from social constructs.  That's why I'm saying we're
dealing with freedom versus order.  More freedom to me
would be more originality enacted from any individual.
 More order to me would be more social control enacted
from any society.  These last two statements could
also be more freedom or more social control on thought
patterns.  I'm not sure if the collective side to this
argument could really get me from thinking this way or
not.  I'm still being open-minded, weighing out the
debate.  
     

     Platt said:  "Probably I have drawn the wrong
conclusions from your explanation. But when you say,
"The issues of values become better or worse (higher
or lower) depending how well the intellect argues for
one or the other" I'm left with the impression that
ones values are decided by the best debating team."

     I'm left with that impression, too - the best
debating team.  Unless, collective versus individual
or freedom versus order are not just in conflict but
are in agreement about one 'thing'.  These all are on
the intellectual level and we are just arguing the
values on the intellectual level.  Yet, it seems some
are arguing whether these values belong on the
societal level.  So we are arguing values.  All of
this non-distinction between levels could easily be
summed up as quality, but if any static quality is to
occur then agreement on where these values belong
would need to happen.  We all might think we are
projecting from the intellectual higher ground and our
intellect is speaking from the intellectual level
whereas others, though they think they are speaking
from the intellectual level are actually putting
values on the  social level.  So who is to say ones
perspective holds the intellectual level, whereas the
another perspective is holding the social level.  If
this is not a debate, then what else is it?  If it is
not who has the best reasoning or  explanation, then
what else is it?  If we are stuck on values where we
should actually not get so caught up on these values
and reach for the quality and by-pass all this
debating, then that's what's to be, a?

SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com