RED wrote:
So just to clarify, I don't think the intellect is preoccupied with society, quite the opposite, I think intellect completely ignores society and is simply going about its own business of making society redundant.
Kenneth Replied:
Hi Richard,
In my opinion anyway, I think you outline in your post what happens now- adays in modern democracies.
That is Intellect = Politics = Avant-Garde = Aristocratic
Social = Ethnical = Kitch = Masses
RED:
Hi Kenneth, thanks for a fascinating mail, I hadn’t seen this theory before and it certainly made me think. I do have a few concerns though and while I may well be arguing with an established theory, if I’m wrong to argue at least I’ll learn something!
Kenneth:
The ' problem ' you seem to evocate is IMO not that Intellect ignores society, but that society is making herself redundant due to the Intellect which she applies for going about her business.
RED:
I’m not sure I full understand what you are saying here but the impression I get is that IYO my view is not that the intellect ignores society but that society is making ITSELF redundant. I hope that isn’t what I have been saying, as my view is the exact opposite. I think that intellect DOES ignore society and the formulation of the new ideas from the intellect leaves the society redundant, as there is nothing within society to compete with the new laws. My view is that society has no dice to role, no moves to play as intellect is calling the shots, and only at times when society threatens a full over-throwing of intellectual ruling does the intellect have to listen. Further to this, I think society is only able to threaten such action as we are still in the transitory period between society ruling and intellect ruling.
K:
de Tocqeville: - People want their freedom, but on the other hand people are following all the others. Man can 't reject the one and the other and therefor he ties himself in knots to satisfied both notions.
R:
Kenneth, I’m not sure whether you mean man as in singular (in which case I totally disagree), or whether you mean man as the collection (in which case I still disagree but can see the reasoning behind such an argument). If you view it as a collection of men then yes at the moment there are groups who want their freedom and there are groups who want to follow, but that is only in the static frame. 3/4/500 years ago there was no such split, there were two classes, the peasants and the aristocracy and it remained this was for a LONG time, never changing. Then as the Victorian society began to collapse, the new freedom fighters came about and they have been growing in numbers since. If we extend the trend by 200 years, I think you’ll find that the vast majority of the population is grouped together in huge cities while neighbours don’t communicate and everyone looks after their own interests. Viewed statically, your argument holds water, looked at dynamically, I don’t think it does. Just my opinion, of cou
rse! :o)
K:
So man invented a centralized power-system and as a palliative man comfort himself with the thought he has chosen his own lectures.
R:
There has always been a centralized power-system. In days of old this was a ruling monarchy who governed society as they saw fit. As the Victorian values began to decline, personal freedom flourished and the old system of government stopped working. This is the transition from monarchy to democracy, which I suppose is what you mean by centralized power-system. My view is that theirs always been such a thing, but as the values of civilization has changed, the face of this power-system has changed as well, at first there was tribe leader, then a despot, then a monarchy finally a democracy.
K:
People, here the Masses, are stupid and utterly narrow-minded.
R:
Because of failing in education, which is a failing of society. Why don’t some people study? “Because it’s not cool, man”. Change that view, show them the rewards and they’ll surprise you, Kenneth!!
K:
For the sake, as they see it, of Equality they place a Intellectual System above it all ( Politics) by which " they " rule what the community really wants.
R:
They don’t place it there, it’s already there, they just see no need to challenge it. If a system works, why get rid of it?
K:
But, like de Tocqeville said 200 years ago and you do mention, the Intellect makes everything and everybody equal in such a way that noone is more than one other.
R:
You say that like it’s a bad thing, Kenneth. :o)
K:
What is left is a society like ours today, the Intellect is running loose with no one to guide it but herself.
R:
As far as I am aware, the only thing able to control another thing is something that is more powerful. Thus, organic systems rule inorganic ones (caveman’s adaptation to surroundings), society can rule organic systems (as it did in the Victorian age), and intellect can rule over society (as it is now doing). The only thing higher than intellectual value is a dynamic value, and since dynamic value is constantly changing in the manner it sees fit, then that fits the boundaries of as “intellect running loose” as it guided by something you cannot see. We are simple organic values systems, we cannot understand the evolutionary path of the intellect so maybe we just need to trust it, and comment on it? Again, just my view.
K:
The problems of such societies are found on the narrow margian between Intellect and Social, between Avant- garde and Kitch, between what we could call the High Culture and the Low Culture. Those divisions are found throughout society and on every level. To solve the problem, as I see it, we need to give the individual a new and fundamental bias wherein both, that is Avant- garde and Kitch are combined. That is, in a sense is each of us a fundamentalist...that is we are searching for a fundament by which we can express " That is I ".
R:
I think, in a very simplistic way, we already have such a fundament. It is the fundament of wealth. Bare with me on this, I’ll explain myself a bit more. As you say above, the intellect leads to politics, which leads to government. Government can govern, as it is richer than any one part of civilization. If, for example, the income of a corporation exceeded that of the government, who is really in power? So, the government needs to keep increasing its income to continue in power. There are two main sources of income for government, 1 is corporation tax on the corporations, and the 2nd is income tax. Therefore, the simplest was for a government to stay in power is to make the corporations rich, make the citizens rich and thus both are content in paying taxes.
Where’s this going?…
The fundament is that people want to be rich as they would rather have the avant-garde than the kitch and again, I think the reason you have a concern over the process is that you are looking at the present static frame where there is equal numbers of rich and impoverished people (in developed nations) which clouds your view. Hundreds of years ago, the vast majority of wealth was held in a few households so if we again continue the trend, we see an increase the general wealth, and since you can never be too rich, this provides the driving force of the new form of society we are getting and also provides backbone to the new power-system being created. People will continue to give faith to the new pwer-system, and the numbers supporting it will continue as the new power-system promises to make them (if not rich then) well off and people like the idea of that! Again, just my view, and maybe a controversial one???
K:
Nowadays, the fundaments are religion, nation, color of our skin, belief, work, social class, nationality, ethical values,...etc.
R:
You missed wealth, perhaps the most important one?
K:
What I see in memetics, is that IMO, it can act as the bias whereout we can drawn our INDIVIDUALITY, and secondly, I believe memetics can act as the bias for such a society as mentioned as above. I believe that memetics can act as the bias for a new philosophy and why not as the very basic for a new metaphysics.
R:
I joined the group late and am not aware of memetics or what they are about, and while could hazard a guess from the spelling, I think it would be unwise to do so! Maybe you’d be kind enough to enlighten me?? :o)
K:
Just a thought,
R:
And an extremely interesting one at that! Thank you Kenneth, I hope I haven’t questioned things that there is no need to question!
Kind regards
Richard
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:51 BST