[MD] What's missing

[Laird Bedore]

> [Arlo]
>   
>> As such the "revolutionary individual" comes from a culture ready to 
>> head such a revolution. S/he is "an individual", to be sure, but 
>> represents the collective, social value patterns built through 
>> social activity.
>>
>>     
> [Khaled]
> In Lila Pirsig talks about NYC as a city going to hell, as the quality of
> thing disintegrates but somehow never gets there. 
> Social dramatic changes never seem to happen anymore. We have 2 political
> parties that feed at the same trough. Once the election is over, we are
> back to the status quo.
> Things like the economic collapse of 1939 won't happen again, things will
> get bad and stagnate but no collapse. No change. And that goes for the
> social and political agenda. We will have a shift here and there, but no
> major changes. Has the pendulum gotten too heavy to swing anymore.
>
> K
>   

[Laird]
Khaled, I hope you're right. I'd like to think that the social level is 
stabilizing, much like the other levels did before. We certainly don't 
see a lot of biological revolution going on these days either (aside 
from our poking and prodding at stems cells in the lab). As the social 
level increases its stability, hopefully people will start thinking more 
abstractly as the norm rather than the exception. Then we'll be ready 
for some real fireworks in the intellectual level.

Back towards the question of "what's missing?" - At some point along our 
constructed timeline of history, a critical mass of the populace began 
to feel not only the urge to think individually but the acceptability to 
_communicate_ their internal dissent, to question authority publicly, 
and to collaboratively look for better ideas. As such, the intellectual 
level clearly has its roots in the social level, particularly when our 
social level developed to the point of people saying 'no' to authority 
from time to time (and not losing their head for it!).

Sure, individuals play a critical role in intellectual patterns, but 
they play just the same role in social patterns. Individualism (a social 
pattern through and through) may have played an important role in 
starting the intellectual level, but calling it an intellectual pattern 
is putting the cart before the horse.

Well, there's my two cents. Hopefully I'll have more time to read and 
contribute soon!

-Laird