[MD] a-theism and atheism

[John Carl]

dave,

In my original posting I did mention that this is a point of contention.  If
you'd like to contend it, I'm willing.

On Tue, Nov 23, 20

> dmb says:
>
> The most primitive tribe is intellectually guided? Not the way Pirsig uses
> the word. As you may recall from Lila, he thinks socially guided societies
> would include Victorian America, which still hasn't quite given up the fight
> for control.


All humans for all time are a mixture of the four levels.  The Victorians
were very socially oriented, but was this not in part a reaction to the
intellectual challenges of evolving techno-industrial control and scientific
progress?  A mixture then.  Just like always.  All human society is a
mixture of intellectual and social and biological forces in dynamic tension.




> To say that a culture is socially guided is NOT to say it is meaningless or
> stupid, although the Victorian culture was that too. In any case, I think
> Pirsig draws a line between the two that you're not acknowledging properly.
> Maybe it would help to look thru those chapters on the conflict between
> social and intellectual values in 20th century history.
>
>
He also points out the great advances made and that the comfortable lives we
live are products of their intellectual leaps.  It seems to me, that what
the Victorian age produced was the specialization - they separated out the
intellectual from the social, and kept each in it's sphere.  Just like the
men with brandy and cigars after dinner going into their place, the women
into theirs.  Extreme compartmentalization.



>
> John said:
> At the same time, intellectual dominance is largely decided by social
> patterns - gathering agreement and persuading others to "join our side".
> There's probably no more intellectual world in the world, than a faculty
> meeting, but also no place more devoted to social-type politics and gaming.
>
> dmb says:
>
> You're confusing the issue.


John:

Not my fault!  It's a confusing issue.

dmb:



> If something is decided by social patterns then you couldn't rightly call
> it intellectual.


John:

Ok, how do you classify "peer review"?  Is that a social pattern or an
intellectual pattern?  I'd say its a social pattern casting judgement upon
an intellectual one.

dmb:



> That would be the definition of guidance by social level values. I don't
> see why a faculty meeting should be anything more than social. It's just
> about institutional logistics and such. It's not supposed to serve any
> scientific or philosophical purposes directly even if it's the faculty of
> Harvard. In any case, I think you misunderstand the social-intellectual
> distinction almost entirely.
>
>
John:

Ok, I'm stupid about the social-intellectual distinction.  Enlighten me, oh
wise one.  Show me a single pattern anywhere that is purely intellectual
with no social component at all.   That's like trying to show a social
pattern that is not made up of biological beings.  Impossible.  It's always
a mixture, dave.  In the real world.


>
> dmb says:
> Heroic super-dave?  As usual, I'm very impressed with your graciousness and
> generosity. Stay classy, John.
>
>
>
Don't let it go to your head, perfessor.  I've got a very low standard for
super-heroes.

John