[MD] Social Intellectual

[John Carl]

 good points, Ian, Craig,


Ian:

>
>
> The paradox is that having conceptualised a high quality intellectual
> idea / pattern, (using intellectual "freedom") it needs to be realized
> in the lower levels (or remain forever conceptual). That realization
> through the social level then depends on being able to "dominate"
> other social patterns using things that look less like "freedom" and
> more like "authority" backed by "force" and it starts to look more
> like a social pattern, even though it originated in intellect.


John:

In every example of human society I've ever seen or heard about, the two
levels are intertwined.  But I agree completely that social patterns are
conceptualized intellectually, and intellect originates new ones to replace
outworn modes.  But what kind of intellect is actually doing the
origination?

I argue that its the romantic side of intellect, it's the artist, the
novelist, the dramatist and the movie producer. These intellectuals of the
Romantic side of the dichotomy get a sense or a feeling about what would be
good, and when they produce what is good, it becomes socially accepted and
THEN the classically oriented intellectuals get ahold of it and examine and
define and explain.

Pirsig explicates this pattern when he talks about the futility of  teaching
rhetorical quality by following rules.  And this is why I think the term
"intellectual" alone is an inadequate label for the 4th level of being.  It
leaves out the leading edge - the aesthetic - the artistic sense that knows
beyond definition what is good.

Ian:


> The
> distinction between intellectual and social patterns is not in doubt
> BUT HOW a culture "manages" its socialization of its intellect whilst
> preserving the freedoms its intellect requires (ie governance) is the
> real issue. It is almost all about limitations to freedoms.
>
>

What we  realize is that freedom is fundamental to social and intellectual
evolution.  Without the all-important freedom to create and reject, any
system of governance falls into stagnation and decay.  Which is the main
reason that there is no  Soviet Union today.

And since Capitalism has evolved into a similar static dead-end, with big
corporate interests now  manipulating the culture  to their own
self-perpetuation, why there won't be a  United States  tomorrow unless some
vital revolution occurs.



> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:56 PM,  <craigerb at comcast.net> wrote:
> > "...a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values
> > over social values is absolutely superior to one that does not."
> > (Pirsig, Lila, p.311)
> >
> > .
> > IMHO the 2 important questions that this quote raises are:
> > 1) would a free culture that supports the dominance of intellectual
> > values over social values be superior to an authoritarian culture
> > that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social values &
> > 2) would a free a culture be more likely than an authoritarian culture
> > to support the dominance of intellectual values over social values.
> >
> > Craig
> >
>


John:  My answers would then be:

1) Yes

2) yes