[MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual

[MarshaV]

Hi Peter,

This makes sense to me.  Once a solution has been found and accepted, it 
become socialized into a social pattern.

Marsha



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Corteen" <psigenics at googlemail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual


> Suggest that deliberate symbol manipulation is what distinguished the
> intellectual level.
>
> Symbols are manipulated in Social level activity too but here think Social
> === Emotional; when considering others the emotions are always involved 
> and
> the level of freedom to respond is more limited - at the Social level 
> things
> happen more by reaction. Intellectual activity, is always about problem
> solving and requires a more deliberate effort to manipulate those symbols.
>
> -Peter
>
> 2008/7/14 Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>:
>
>> Chris, DMB, SA, et al ...
>>
>> I'm catching-up / summarizing first. As MoQists we hold Individual
>> (Freedoms) in some sense above Social / Collective / Cosmic (Duties /
>> Responsibilities), and we hold Intellectual (PoV's) in some sense
>> above Social (PoV's). But ... exactly how ...
>>
>> (This thread embodies the recurring difficulty with defining
>> Intellectual as against Individual and defining Social/Collective
>> against Individual, hence even the Social / Intellectual distinction
>> still has some fuzziness. I have always preferred a view that treats
>> the social and intellectual as one level - and acknowledges a spectrum
>> of individual and collective patterns of value within it .... but
>> that's just me .... avoiding conflict - I like fuzzy.)
>>
>> We all value "freedom" - the liberals by defintion, and for the
>> conservatives it's a mantra to beat liberals with - and let the
>> partizan rhetorical battles commence - but not here please. What we
>> argue about is, that whilst intellectual patterns / individual freedom
>> are "higher" than collective / social patterns, we cannot agree any
>> valid limitations on freedoms by those collective aspects - markets or
>> social duties, whatever. "Governance" is my word for this problematic
>> issue - of limits to indivdual freedom - any or none.
>>
>> Anyway, as DMB says "symbolic manipulation" is not sufficient to
>> define intellectual from social. We have to communicate symbolically /
>> lingustically - and so do herds of antelope - to participate even at
>> the social level.
>>
>> This self-conscious "I" is definitely part of the evolved distinction
>> at the "individual intellect" end of this spectrum ... much has been
>> said about ego's and id's before. Social "animals" may not necessarily
>> involve a "self-conscious mind" in the symbolic manipulation. But
>> these "I"s can exist in both social and intellectual patterns. We have
>> a spectrum. We don't have distinct layers.
>>
>> OK, what specifically have you suggested Chris, that's not covered by 
>> that.
>> Ian
>>
>> On 7/12/08, Christoffer Ivarsson <IvarssonChristoffer at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Craig, Platt
>> >
>> > > [Chris]
>> > >
>> > > > The role of the intellect is first and foremost to take control 
>> > > > over
>> > social
>> > > > level patterns - and that is also why, from a MOQ perspective,
>> Marxism
>> > (or
>> > > > any other political philosophy that seeks to subjugate social 
>> > > > values
>> in
>> > > > favour of the intellectual level) is the only logical, and
>> evolutionary
>> > > > moral way.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > [Craig]
>> > > "Subjugating social values in favour of the intellectual level" is
>> > notsufficient >justification.
>> > >
>> >
>> > [Chris]
>> > What do you mean? You don't want to create a society that places
>> > intellectual value over social value?
>> >
>> > [Craig]
>> > > It must do it in a way that does not violate higher intellectual
>> values.
>> > >
>> >
>> > [Chris]
>> > Perhaps, but what would these values be? Human rights? Freedom? You 
>> > could
>> > line up slogans and I could easily identify all of them as being 
>> > products
>> of
>> > the intellectual level, sure, but transformed into SOCIAL 
>> > VALUEPATTERNS.
>> >
>> > [Craig]
>> > > At this Marxism fails miserably.
>> > >
>> >
>> > How so? When I talk about the Marxist theory I mostly mean the strive
>> > towards abolishing the capitalist system (so that social values such as
>> > profit isn't allowed to subjugate humanity's strive towards knowledge)
>> and
>> > how this is to be done there is different answers to, beginning with
>> classic
>> > Marxism saying we need a several hundred year transition period of
>> socialism
>> > where the social values are reshaped to be more in the intellectual
>> levels
>> > favour - and  then there are others. We could discuss Leninism if you
>> wish,
>> > Lenin that I identify as a perfect example of a vessel for the
>> intellectual
>> > level trying to bring intellectual supremacy over social values about. 
>> > Of
>> > course the conditions weren't there (in Russian and the world) and he
>> > happened to die young and get a rather bad successor, but still.
>> >
>> > [Craig]
>> > There'snever a shortage of "isms" or people who want to "subjugate 
>> > social
>> > values".
>> >
>> > I think there is a shortage of people who truly act on behalf of the
>> > intellectual level. Most people only follow social patterns, and most
>> "isms"
>> > only plays on social patterns and values such as "freedom" or
>> "solidarity" -
>> > how many of the followers do you think actually can validate their
>> beliefs
>> > "intellectually"  - without resorting to "Given Values" (Social ones to
>> be
>> > sure) and arguments like "because it just IS wrong!" ?
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > A pleasure debating again, my mind was getting dull.
>> >
>> >
>> > //Chris
>> >
>> > ---
>> >
>> >
>> > This thing regarding the nature of the intellectual level has proven to
>> be,
>> > well, difficult - to say the least. I think we can all agree that the
>> nature
>> > of the intellectual level is that of a way of
>> > responding/understanding/seeing/etc Quality in ways that
>> > are different to
>> > the ways that the other levels /responds/sees/understands Quality.
>> >
>> > Most everyone of you are fully aware of the debate concerning the 
>> > "Symbol
>> > manipulation" given by Mr Pirsig and other explanations and
>> interpretations
>> > of the nature of the intellectual level  - most notably Bodvars SOL.
>> >
>> > I myself tend to discard the symbol manipulation explanation because of
>> > the - as I  see it - quite obvious reason that this is not in conflict
>> with
>> > anything. The MOQ is a moral order, as we all know, and the different
>> levels
>> > have more or less competing "views" on Quality and how to follow it. 
>> > Thus
>> I
>> > am inclined to thing along the paths of
>> >
>> > "What is not by it's _fundamental nature_ in service of either the
>> > inorganic, the biological or the social level?"
>> >
>> > As I said - manipulation of symbols doesn't really cut it for me - 
>> > where
>> is
>> > the FUNDAMENTAL conflict?
>> >
>> > Today I thought about "human nature". Human nature and what thing it is
>> > that is usually connected to the expression that it is in "the human
>> > nature".
>> >
>> > The Quest for knowledge. Embedded in us since  - well, pretty much
>> always.
>> > This drive that seems to be something that is a fundamental part of 
>> > what
>> > makes humans humans, and something that  - of course - may service our
>> > biological needs and our social standards, but that in essance is
>> separated
>> > from these things, that in essance is something that strives towards
>> > something quite aside from these Patterns of Value. Knowledge for
>> > knowledge's
>> > sake.
>> >
>> > I am not sure that it *is* the Intellectual level, but it sure seems to
>> be a
>> > most notable manifestation of it.
>> >
>> > Knowledge for Knowledge's sake. Alone.
>> >
>> > ---
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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/
>> >
>> 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/
>>
> 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/