[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[John Carl]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [John quotes Pirsig as quoted by Bo The Wise]
> "there is no intellectual requirement that any level dominate the other
> three."
>
> [Arlo]
> Would you take this to mean that there is no moral justification for social
> patterns to dominate biological patterns, say with tribal or legal
> restrictions against beating someone up?
>


well first, I'd say such a complex interplay of social and biological
patterns could not be interpreted quite so simplistically.  I'd say that
society evolves in relation to other societys and tribes, in competition
with one another for resources and that the biological drives are sublimated
to this pattern, the normal enemy-formation of the tribe - a social pattern.



 I'd argue rather that the moral issues can't be known from a static
hierarchical relationship, simply for the reason that humans are never just
one thing, they are simultaneously inorganic, biological, social and
intellectual and there is no such thing as any one level as an independent
human entity.



>
> Let me say upfront that I think that "higher level" patterns only have
> moral justification in dominating "lower level" patterns when its to contain
> a threat that would destroy the entire edifice.


Good.  I agree.  What I see you postulating here is an "overall good" and I
think that is important to keep in mind.  Like I always say, it IS moral for
a germ to kill dr mengele.




> Without "laws" prohibiting murder, a functional society becomes almost
> impossible. Without "intellectual" considerations of "law enforcement",
> society remains trapped underneath the power of whatever social pattern (or
> person) is in charge (i.e., no functional intellectual system can develop).
>
> But I do not think such a structure benefits from wanton domination of the
> "lower levels". A society that strives to dominate and control every
> possible biological pattern finds itself eventually like the Victorians. An
> intellect that strives to dominate every aspect of society succumbs to a
> similar malady.
>


Right.  Intellect can't even control itself, much less the rest of reality.


> However, when there *is* conflict, it should morally be the higher pattern
> that "wins out". Laws prohibiting "oral sex", for example, lost to
> "intellectual considerations of freedom and law" that decried such behavior
> between consenting adults to be outside the domain of social domination.
> Consider, in the same vein, laws under consideration that would restrict or
> ban "soda".
>

Well count on me to march in front of the courthouse with signs and banners,
"Free soda and blow jobs for all"



>
> [John]
> As in powerful, mighty, with far-reaching consequences beyond intellectual
> control.
>
> [Arlo]
> Just as social interferece with biological behavior had unpredictable
> results, sure, so does intellectual interference with social patterns. But
> we wouldn't say to society, "now stop interfering with biology", so why do
> that with intellect?


Well i disagree with you on a few fronts, Arlo. I'd say that that is exactly
what the hippies and beats were saying in their seeming degeneracy.  That
social patterns should be more natural as opposed to "sophisticated".  I
agree.

But second and more importantly, the intellectual evolution has produced
tremendous powers - even enough to wipe life off the planet.  The addition
of this intellectual power to social/tribal conflicts is a fundamental
problem of modern life and politics.

And that's just one example.  Part of the problem is the speed and power
with which intellectual "viruses" can spread in these days of mass
communication and mass manipulation.  The whole thing is just fraught with
danger.

Fraught, I tell you.



> When, for example, intellect decreed "free speech" it likely did not forsee
> the unintended consequences of Anarchist's Cookbooks and an Internet that is
> 99% porn. But "free speech" is a good thing.
>
>
Yes, it is.  And here is where I think I can explain what I see as a
positive direction for intellect to go.  Intellect is the analyzer, the
objective thinker that stands back and looks at all sides of the question -
but society decides.  You don't put intellect in control of society, you let
society vote as it does.  But intellect is kept apart and objective and open
to all.

And I should add, you certainly don't put society in charge of intellect
either!




> [Arlo]
> If you mean by "intellectualism" what I call above the "wanton dominance"
> of social patterns, then I agree with you. In the same vein, I'd also reject
> "societalism", the wanton dominance of biological patterns by society.
>

That's the Lord of the Flies scenario, no?  And yes, I agree.


>
> You know, I think we got some words wrong here. What we think of as
> "socialism" should be "intellectualism" (intellectual control of society).
> "Socialism" should refer to people like the Victorians, social dominance of
> biological (and intellectual) patterns.
>
> Alas.
>

Alas indeed.  Those boys on that island were accurately depicted Victorian
boys

You know, in a way the Victorians are interesting in an MoQ way because they
DID separate out the social patterns from the intellectual ones, with a
clear division of labor - the women focusing upon developments in the social
situation and the men retiring to the study to contemplate intellectual
evolvements of the times.  They compartmentalized and specialized in a way
that did produce a lot of good work.  To a point.

I was just reading about Royce's last letters (after WW1 started) regarding
the betrayal of civilization by Germany.  I'd never thought of it in those
terms before.


We are approaching the endgame of the xenophobia we've been fueling for
> decades. What else did you, or anyone, expect would happen?
>


Well I was sorta hoping for Strawberry Fields Forever... but oh well.