[MD] A Lila quote, part one.

[X Acto]

John,
I think you are really hitting apon something, that "Intellectualism"
has become or is a social level pattern of value that dominates
the "intellectual level"  thats the confusion.

Intellectuals are despised because they have an elitist society onto themselves
it's one form of social good verses another form of social good. Dare I say
a static good and a dynamic good.
The intellectual level, the level of free thought, still struggles with social domination
more so than we ever imagined. 
From this perspective it's the social level that is dominated by S/O with the Intellectual level
the level of free thought, which is still struggling to free itself in each and every one of our
minds from the social domination in our lives, the domination of S/O.
 Think for yourself!

see this makes some sense of Bodvars claims, the struggle we think is society/intellect
is really dynamic social good verses static social good. the intellectual level is the freedom
to think for ourselves. a level that few aspire to.

whatchathink?



 


----- Original Message ----
From: John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2009 2:10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] A Lila quote, part one.

These guys sitting in their pews on Sunday, their barstools on Saturday
night, they aren't intellectually dominated by thinktanks, professors and
priests from "top" down.
It's more they are  lazy.  They don't want to think for for themselves.
It's a choice they've made.  One that's been trained into them by a school
system that prefers social drones to competitive intellect, but even that
system is one they've bought into, colluded with.
And maybe that's ok.  Maybe that keeps intellectual evolution going in the
right direction without degenerating into chaos.


But when the intellectuals verify the "truth" of their ideas by the
acceptance of social-bound cretins that do NO intellectual analysis, this is
obviously an immoral and dangerously fallacious mixup of values from one
level impinging upon the values of another.

And because the materialistic payoff is so great, the intellectual level
does not do a good job of offering competing ideas.  Uniformity is a
necessity because the technological/social matrix is so powerful,
centralized control is virtually required.  SOM grabs the wheel and speeds
toward wreckage.



On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:04 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:


The problem with Academics is'nt that they go to school or
> the language they use or the assumptions they make..rather
> the certainty in which they hold thier beliefs.
> That unwavering absolute certainty.
>

Yup, and its because of the intensity of this competition for control.
Enemy formation means I can't even try and picture the other side's view, I
can't find consensus.  We don't have the philosophical leisure to do the job
of intellect, the careful weighing of differing points.  The baggage of
individualistic liberalism in a values vacuum drags academia down into
logical whirlpools of despair.


darn.

I hate it when that happens.


> You go ask a few folks down at the local bar about "objects"
> and they look at you sideways and mutter "Iguess so"
> "never really thought about it" their intellect is caught up in social
> concerns mostly. Whose being traded on their sports team
> how their gonna get even with their asshole nieghbor, their new
> fishin rod...ect. Now these folks figure out their bills
> they manipulate their nieghbors they shop frugally they use
> intellect but with a social aim...are they not on the intellectual level?
>

Very rarely.  I think they used to be much more, they have been getting less
so and I see a point where intellectual quality no longer even exists among
people.  Like every aspect of self, intellect is a choice.  I can read a
book or I can watch tv.  More and more, people choose tv over literature.
On the grand scale, I mean, but even in my own life I find more tv all the
time.    Heck!  I got broadband!  I got Hulu!  I can brag about not owning
a tv, but when the identical programming is piped to my brain, it matters
not whether the object "tv" resides in my living room.

And it is this socialized phenomena that is interfering with what I term
"naturally evolving social patterns" and turning them into artificially
created social patterns.

And jeez, while I'm on this diatribe, I can feel Arlo's prickliness about
any attack on intellectualism.  I mean, it's already under all kinds of
attack!  Why pile on the relatively "good" side?

What I should stick to probably, is what I know best - religion.  For if I'm
angry at the failure of intellectuals to realize and counter the threat of
centralized media control of culture, I'm even more pissed at religious
failure to do the same.

I mean, if you just take the story as its written, God came down from
Heaven, and using His Own Finger, in stone, he carved:

Exd 20:4<http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=20&v=4&t=KJV#comm/4>
¶Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any
thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that
[is] in the water under the earth:
So where do televangelists get off calling themselves "fundamentalist"?
They don't do anything fundamental, all they do is lick the spit of the
priest ahead of them in line.
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/