[MD] Social Intellectual

[skutvik at online.no]

Marsha, DMB, All.

22 July:
 
Marsha had asked Ian:
> Will the Social Level expand and evolve into something different than
> the social level?

Excellent Marsha. The levels (of the past) may have "thought" they 
were expanding, but the expansion resulted in a new level, Society 
"thought" the intellectual "movement" was a social expansion, but it 
proved to be the  level that does its best to "harass" its parent. 

DMB's "cavalry" comes to Ian's rescue:
> It already did. It's called the intellectual level. Or rather it's
> better to think of the social level as the parent of the intellectual
> level because it became independent with it's own rules and purposes.

Right, but this merely enforces Marsha's point that when Society 
expanded, but it proved to be the intellectual level, society were left 
behind as static as static comes, a static level can't expand, it can only 
spawn ever more complicated pattern of its master-pattern. MOQ's 
purpose is to make intellect's S/O a Q-level, while intellect wants to 
keep the MOQ a subjective pattern of its own, and these two purposes 
are certainly at odds.  

Marsha said:
> None demonstrate anything like an expanded intellectual pattern. 
 
DMB comments:
> Are you saying that there are no parallels on the social level that
> compare to the MOQ's expansion of rationality? Are you saying that
> evolutionary developments do not occur within levels? That seems quite
> obviously wrong. Consider the difference between ferns and eagles.
> They're both biological and yet the latter is clearly more evolved
> than the former. 

Yes, but ferns and an eagles (why not bacteria and mammal 
organisms?) are both biological and despite being enormously 
different one won't find a MORAL dividing line between them, while the 
social/intellectual MORAL border is absolute. 

> Consider the difference between the chief of a tribe of
> hunter-gatherers and the mayor of New York City. They're both leaders
> at the social level and yet the former is clearly more evolved than the
> latter. (That was a joke.) 

OK, joke or not, exactly the same goes for this comparison, there is 
nothing principally different between the two, but no intellectual pattern 
will  fit the social morality, it looks upon pure social patterns as evil (the 
mayor of an American community is of course throughly 
intellectualized) .  .    

> To say that intellect = SOM is like saying biology = reptiles.  		 	   		 

I see you seek high and low for the argument that will shoot down the 
SO, but that's in wain, this is childish nonsense. 

> SOM is an intellectual description of reality, not the capacity to
> create intellectual descriptions. Big difference. 

SOM is NOT an intellectual description of reality. It is the conviction 
that the is an OBJECTIVE reality that we make SUBJECTIVE 
descriptions of and this IS the 4th. level, all of it every last bit. 

Bodvar