[MD] Social Intellectual

[Ian Glendinning]

John,

Intellect only leaves out the aesthetic leading edge IF we adopt some
limited dumb SOMist idea of what intellect is.

Ian

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:18 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>  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
> 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/md/archives.html
>