Richard wrote:
Question: Many of those on this group seem to think society and intellect
are at war, and intellect is trying to forcefully gain ground on
society. If this is the case, then since there are so many people in
society, why aren't they using their power?
Danila says:
Hello, I'm new here and with some trepidation walk into the middle of a
philosophy discussion for which I have no preparation (being an intuitive
empiricist who loathes philosophology). Still, as I'm committed to the MOQ
as a valid descriptive philosophy, I'd like to comment on the
Social-Intellectual relationship.
I am surprised that some people who have thought about MOQ believe that
"society and intellect are at war." In the MOQ, the Society and
Intellectual levels are not 'things' with stable properties independent of
the observer. In practice, they exist only in the value-relationship of
two real entities.
For example, a law allowing the death penalty for certain crimes. This law
can be seen as a "Social" phenomenon when it is used in a Social pattern,
for example when politicians advertise their support for this law during a
campaign. The relationship here is between law-as-existing-social-pattern
and politician-as-representative-of-society. No intellect (questioning of
the truth or usefulness of the law) is involved. The same law is an
"Intellectual" phenomenon when law students argue about its origins,
effects, etc. during a law class. The relationship here is between
law-as-intellectual-pattern-that-can-be-changed and
person-who-can-invent-intellectual-changes-to-the-law. When a politician
talks about the social effects of the law and says it should be changed,
but doesn't give arguments why, the law oscillates between being Social
and Intellectual.
Because the levels are properties of relationships, as long as
relationships exist (forever) the Intellectual level cannot 'break
free'---nor should it try. It would be disastrous for the world if the
smartest and best-placed people, when operating on the Intellectual level,
thought their responsibility was to destroy Social value
patterns. (Phaedrus rightly criticizes the 60's intellectuals for allying
with Biology against Society.) What would Intellect do all by itself
without Society to provide it with roads and computers? What would
Intellect do without Society as a laboratory to try out its
schemes? Aren't many if not most Intellectual schemes ABOUT Society?
Some people are temperamentally drawn to political philosophy,
anthropology, social work, etc. DQ can exist in any Intellectual-Social
relationship, whether 'professional' (ongoing) or temporary, from the
professional thinker in the social sciences who publishes her articles to
the factory worker who invents a better way to do the job. This kind of
Intellectual work is not inferior to Intellectual work that has no direct
(mathematics) or indirect (art) relationship to society. Both
Social-focused Intellectual work and DQ-focused Intellectual work are
necessary for evolution to continue on all levels. Intellect has a
responsibility to have an ongoing relationship with Society in order to
bring DQ into society.
When Pirsig says that the Intellectual level is striving to break free of
Society, I think he means that some people's Intellect sometimes wants to
dissolve itself into mysticism (pure DQ) or mathematics or artistic
creativity, where the intractable Social problems don't exist and
Society's clamors for Intellect's solutions or for Intellect to go away
are quieted for a while. Some people are happy 'in the clouds' all
day; others want to spend most of their time applying their intellect to
real-life data. Again, this is a matter of the person's temperament and a
matter of degree. Both types are needed. I suspect people who say "Society
and Intellect are at war" are identifying the "Intellectual" only with
kinds of thought that have nothing to do with Society. As a pragmatist,
I'm far more interested in applying the MOQ to real-life problems than in
staying on the Intellectual level as with mathematics. My Intellect is
definitely not at war with Society; it wants to improve Society.
>From Society's point of view: It is true that Society often wants to
stifle Intellect, but Society also asks Intellect for help, or accepts
Intellectual changes with little resistance. Western Society is more
accepting than Afganistan Society of Intellect that brings in DQ. All
societies are on a continuum as to the amount of DQ they will accept from
Intellect. I don't think we can make a general statement about Society's
hostility or friendliness to Intellect, except that broadly speaking
Society both needs and resents Intellect, as Intellect needs and resents
Society. Individual cases in real life may be only need or resentment.
Sincerely,
Danila
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