[MD] Babylonian intellectuals

[David Thomas]

On 7/24/10 8:55 AM, "David Buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> It was Pirsig's idea to use FDR and Hitler to illustrate the difference
> between social and intellectual values. In that example the fascist is
> described as being profoundly anti-intellectual. See, it's not that the
> anti-intellectual sees nothing at all when she's looking at intellectual
> values. She sees these values the way a dog sees a newspaper. She can see that
> it is an object but is unaware of the content and meaning of it's printed
> pages. She only knows it as something that hurts her when she's smacked with
> it. 

Just because Pirsig used this example does not mean that he was limiting his
claim that socialism or communism was intellectually based and thus morally
superior, to just what FDR did in America. But even if your interpretation
is correct the problem of determining what is intellectual and what is not
particularly in the realm of human governance seem to me based on RMP
examples to be purely arbitrary.

I think we both agree that the scientific method, its discoveries, and the
resulting shifts in philosophy required to accommodate these advancements
are all intellectual patterns, qualities, or values. I think we will both
agree that even now the majority of these advancements have been in the
realms of inorganic, physical sciences and biological sciences. Social
sciences and intellectual sciences whatever they many eventually end up
being or discovering have lagged way, way, behind. But what happened in the
period leading up to WWI and continuing to WWII is that people started
proposing that "science" could and should be applied to the social
organization of people. Unfortunately there was little or no "real" science
that had been done in the social and intellectual areas and for technical
and moral reasons may never truly be done. None the less all forms of
governments in the developed world fascist, socialist, democracies seized on
the idea to merge "science" and "governance" making governance a scientific
endeavor. Because there was little or no real science at the social and
intellectual levels they used models from physical and biological science in
particular the theory of evolution. Using the crudest models of evolution,
nature vs nurture or species vs environment, these various political
movements selected and implemented various programs to tinker with both.

So let's return to the claim the Hitler's brand of fascism was
anti-intellectual. I think we with both agree the traditional work of people
over eons to select and breed plants and animals that were "better", more
usefully for people was a precursor to the science of Mendel, Darwin and
many, many others. And that the science of Mendel etc are intellectual
patterns. What Hitler proposed (seizing on the both the tradition and
science outlined above) is that the Aryan race was native to Germany, was
being polluted, corrupted, by cross breeding, and needed to be actively
managed by government intervention to prevent this from happening. It needed
to return to a purebreed line like German Shepherds. He adopted an
intellectual pattern from biology and applying it to human society by
political force. However morally reprehensible or wrongheaded this was it is
not anti-intellectual but selectively-intellectual. Many cultures around the
world have all dabbled to a greater or lesser degree with the same idea. It
is not anti-intellectual it is misguided-intellectual.

Dave