[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[Arlo Bensinger]

[John]
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.

[Arlo]
My question remains, why is it that when biological patterns are 
"sublimated" to social patterns, this is "normal" and (if I interpret 
correctly) "okay", but this same "normal sublimation" of social 
patterns by intellectual patterns suddenly "abnormal" and "not okay"?

You see what I am getting at. If we are criticizing "intellect" for 
"wanton dominance", then we have little disagreement, for this same 
criticism could apply to the relationship between the social and 
biological levels. Its one thing to look at the relationship between 
any two levels and say that the "balance" should be dominance only in 
the face of certain destruction, and non-control otherwise. Its 
another to imply (not that you are, but it seems that way to me) that 
every level has the moral right to dominate the previous *except* intellect.

[John]
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.

[Arlo]
No, likely not. Its often temptingly simplistic to say "this is 
intellect" and "that is social" so this should morally trump that. As 
you, and Ian, correctly point out, there are very complex interwoven 
things at play. One of my favorite examples is always public 
libraries. I'd argue that "intellect" is morally justified in 
dominating society to produce/maintain these for the purpose of 
preserving knowledge and maximizing through distribution the 
possibility of intellectual progress. In societies where 
intellect/knowledge is restricted/hard-to-get (in one way or 
another), the evolution of intellect is threatened. But others see 
this as an immoral incursion on their income (a case of intellect 
immorally trying to dominate social patterns).

[John]
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.

[Arlo]
If only the germ could distinguish between its "victims". I think 
"overall good" is the view the MOQ gives us.

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

[Arlo]
Well you could say the same thing for any of the levels. Society 
certainly cannot "control itself", much less the rest of reality. It 
has tried, and historically the results have been horrific.

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

[Arlo]
I vote we make this the new California state motto.

[John]
But second and more importantly, the intellectual evolution has 
produced tremendous powers - even enough to wipe life off the planet.

[Arlo]
The problem here, John, stems a lot from the social dominance of 
intellect. That is, intellect produces (or has allowed mankind to 
produce) weapons of mass destruction (if only we could find them 
:-)), but when this occurs where social power structures dominate 
other intellectual principles (free speech, freedom of religion, 
freedom of assembly, equal rights under the law, human equality, 
etc.) the results can be catastrophic. But really, this is just an 
extension of the immorality of wanton social dominance. The Native 
Americans suffered near genocidal assault from the wars and germs 
brought by Europeans seeking money, land and wealth. If those leaders 
had the same weapons we have today... it would have been a complete 
end-of-story. The paradox is that no nation should be able to build 
atomic weapons until they are enlightened enough to realize that 
using them is immoral. But that is not how it plays out.

[John]
You don't put intellect in control of society, you let society 
vote as it does.

[Arlo]
Again, why not, "you don't put society in control of biology, you let 
biology act as it does"?

The problem with the above is that there will always be those seeking 
social power and control. I don't think you let "society" vote away 
"habeas corpus", for example, just because it is scared, or convinced 
by a leader that doing so is necessary to combat the Bugbear du Jour.

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

[Arlo]
Do you put society in charge of biology? I think we are generally in 
agreement, John, I just resist the focus exclusively on "intellect 
dominating society" as it implies (to me) that the same dominance 
between other levels is okay. For me its about the same, balanced 
relationship at all the level-divides. Enough control to prevent the 
edifice from collapsing, enough control to ensure that the morally 
higher levels are not subjugated by the lower levels, but apart from 
this freedom at ALL the levels should be maximized.

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

[Arlo]
Hippy. =)