[MD] A Lila quote, part one.

[John Carl]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:06 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
Well I didn't realize that was what I was on to, so thanks for finding it,
but yes, that's it  - intellectuals playing by social rules caused by bad
metaphysics.  What do you do with an intellectual who has lost his
objectivity?

As you point out, we despise him is what we do.  And rightly so.

>
> 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?
>


Every social pattern does have some sort of intellectual underpinning, but
those social beings engaging upon the scene hardly ever think or analyze
those underpinnings or much of anything but how to score points in the
social game.  So the engagement in 4th level objectivity is rare. Intellect
regarding intellect itself!

There is an intellectually objective manipulation of inorganic matter that
men think about almost all the time and women seem to be better at
intellectually analyzing social relations (boys and girls practically spring
from the womb, specializing in these two disparate domains)  But objectively
analyzing the whole thing, thinking about thinking, contemplating truly
dynamic intellectual evolutionary change or bringing it about -  that is a
level that few indeed, aspire to.  Or even contemplate.