Does anybody think that the confusion over social/intellectual might be
settled by the insertion of a fifth level between biological and social-
namely "Sentient" refering to the descion making powers of an individual
biological entity that operates with or without regard to society of
intellect? Just a thought.
Rick
At 11:53 AM 11/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
> Hi, gang.
>
>On Sat, 31 Oct 1998, GLOVE wrote:
>>hello everyone
>>
>>Donny wrote 10/28/98 at 1:56pm :
>>
>>Am I to interpret those of you who say society is of higher moral value than
>>"intellecet" as meaning that we should not resort to rational, [relative]
>>objectivity when setteling social debates? Should we insted resort just to
>>social class? Force? I'm afraid you crowd are going to have a very hard
>>time
>>selling your version of the MoQ to the public, indeed.)
>>
>>Donny, hopefully none of my writings have inferred that social patterns of
>>value are higher than intellectual patterns of value, for i agree with
>>Pirsig. the Metaphysics of Quality gives us a device for seeing how these
>>patterns interact with one another. because i say we NEED social patterns of
>>value does in no way negate the need of intellectual freedom. if social
>>patterns are disrupted by war or economic depression, intellectual patterns
>>of value are disrupted as well.
>
> I agree completley. One of my favorite statments made by the great
>philosopher Wittgenstein was something he said during WWII: "It is gastly
>that anybody could do philosphy during these times." Philosophy is a
>comparativly unimportant, unserious, peace-time activity. Social defence
>and stability is important bussiness. Biological stability is even more
>serious -- more "real."
> If you know the works of Doris Lessing, she is fond of writting
>about how easy it is for even well educated men and women to revert to a
>"primative," "Neandertha" moral/social possition. It's also the theam of
>*Apocolyps Now*, and (from my generation) *Natural Born Killers*, and the
>nightly news. (One of my favorite books has always been *Lord of the
>Flys*)
>
>>
>>and Donny writes:
>>
>>But now, today, we live in more enlightened times, right? Because we hold
>>that social statuss has no bareing on proof.
>>
>>Donny, i tend to agree with you to a point, and yet we most certainly do use
>>social status as a means of 'proving' something. if we didnt, people wouldnt
>>struggle for years to obtain advanced degrees, which i am sure you would
>>agree with. it seems to me learning that knowledge is a social level pattern
>>of value, while using what has been learned turns into an intellectual
>>pattern of value.
>
> I, again, agree completly. I was being somewhat ironic in the
>statment you quoted above. For one thing: While the Victorian-Edwardian
>society was distributed by heridetary Honor, our society is divided-up and
>distributed along class lines based on "intellegence" -- it's been
>blue-collor/white-collor; today it's knowledge-worker/laborer. There's
>been a lot of writting lately about how we're creating an "intellectual
>elete" as the ruling class of our global village.
> But here's my point: While the Int. level values objectivity and
>the independence of Truth from social class, this is really an *ideal* --
>It's a statment of promise like the boy scout moto; not a report about
>some facts of the world. The Int. level can never be trully free of the
>social level because it grows out of this. Objectivity and the scientific
>proof are valued only so long as we live in a society which supports these
>views. If that society should cromble, should fall back into something
>like the Victorian world... by-by IntPoVs. Joseph McCarthy's communist
>witch-hunts from America's 50s was such a laps.
>
>>best wishes to all,
>>
>>glove
>
> TTFN (ta-ta for now)
> Donny
>
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:38 BST