I think we're at the point where we must agree to disagree. I mean, to play
on your analogy of a sports team; it absolutely makes sense to me that if
"every player on a team is great" then - yes - the team would be great.
Intellect cannot be destroyed or become null just because you put a group of
people together. It's ludicrious. Yes, groups, societies, etc., behave
different than individuals but there is such thing as group consciousness
and, thus, group intellect. How can you say that societies can debate and
make decisions but not have any kind of intellect. Then how do these things
get done? Any introductory sociology course teaches group behavior. That
behavior is dictated by something. That something is an intellect.
Different from individual intellect? Yes. But intellect none the less. So
I think we must agree to differ on the point that collective consciousness
does not equal intellect. I say it does. Because a society will make
decisions for itself; and the process by which they come about is intellect -
a thought process.
The overriding social code of the early half of the century in America was a
victorian one. And, as Pirsig says, it emphasized duty to socitey. I'm not
saying they didn't use intellect, logic, etc. But their social code was
dictated by duty to society, family; not intellect. I mean, it's logical to
divorce someone you hate but divorce was an absolute taboo in the early 20th
C. in America. Those old Victorian social codes made divorce a shame upon
yourself, family, etc.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST