[MD] Social Intellectual

[david buchanan]

Ian said:
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.

dmb says:
I don't think that's true. Nobody ever defended Einstein's equation at gunpoint. Ideas are protected or shot down through social institutions like academic journals, funders of research grants, universities and such. Our highest laws are supposed to protect intellectual freedom. The Bill of Rights is supposed to prohibit any infringements on the right to free speech, freedom of association, trial by jury, freedom of religion. The free exchange of ideas is more valuable than the freedom to buy and sell things. Wouldn't it be nice if Americans appreciated the meaning of intellectual freedom a little more and cared a little less about his "freedom" as a consumer? I think so. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a lot less "stuff" but every single thing we owned was really well built and beautiful too? I think so.


"...a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social values is absolutely superior to one that does not." (Pirsig, Lila, p.311)


This quote raised two questions for Craig:

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.



dmb says:

I sincerely wonder if there is such a thing as an authoritarian culture that supports intellectual dominance. The first line of Wiki says, "Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is opposed to individualism and democracy. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political power is concentrated in a leader or leaders, typically unelected, who possess exclusive, unaccountable, and arbitrary power." I'd say very few forms of society are more hostile to intellectual freedom. In some cases, the worst cases (Hitler, Stalin, etc), intellectuals were murdered by the truckload. Authoritarians do not want any kind of opposition, and they want smart opponents least of all. Anti-intellectualism is almost universal among authoritarians and so I think it's extremely unlikely that there has ever been such a thing as an authoritarian that supports intellectual values in any meaningful way, although rocket scientists might be useful to them.
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3