Hi Danila, hi Chris, hi all,
Danila Oder wrote:
>
> 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.
Much to modest IMO :-)
>
> 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.
[...] some snipped
> 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.
Johannes:
I agree to this; I also see most issues in human societys being dealt upon with
both, intellectual patterns as well as social patterns . To say that this or
that is subject to only intellectual or only social would be a negation of human
nature. I haven't tried yet, but I expect the same problem to arise, when we
would try to distinguish between biological and social pattern for higher
developed mamals or hominides.
I look upon the relation of social to intellectual patterns as being a sort of
polarity. They stick to each other, they argue against each other while none of
both can reach a constant ruling over the other. I imagine this polarity as
being similar to siamesian twins, depending on each other but nonetheless in
constant swing of nearly overpowering the other, but never succeeding in this.
At least I consider those swinging polarities as one basic pattern of many
biological value-beings; they look as if being unstable, but IMO they are not
only better, more stable than a 'one-is-ruling' value-being. I consider them as
- especially the polarities, there are also 'trinties', but very seldom found -
the best combination of stableness on the one hand and readiness for dynamic
input on the other hand; this may be also the reason for our tendency to make
dichotomic distinctions. If we structure the world only by means of a dichotomic
method I would estimate, that you can describe the world at least up to 70
percent (roughly); seems to meet Chris' argumentation somehow.
Chris wrote:
[...]
> When you move from 'absolute' truth where there is no awareness/recognition
> of negation you shift into recognition of doubt and so ... uncertainty.
>
> Science cannot work with absolute faith officially but the way algorithms
> and formulas are used you would think that Science was a Religion :-)
>
> Think of truth as manifest in stimulus/response behaviour, like a samurai
> with his sword, they are 'blended', as 'one' and all response is 'precise'
> and 'right'. An error leads to death or if you are lucky you get away with
> some injury. Here you move into stimulus/considered_response, feeback on the
> cause of the injury etc is used to re-assess and so refine the skills and in
> so doing reconfirm one's faith in oneself ready for the next
> stimulus/response exercise -- you learn from feedback and then 'stop'
> thinking.. make the learning into a habit... react with no thought, react
> precisely :-) Thus education and feedback act to give more choices in
> response to genetically determined GENERAL behaviours.
>
> This allows you to integrate well with any specific context as well as
> general contexts and those that intergrate well are more often seen as
> having 'quality' in their interactions with reality.
>
> Whilst you are in considered_response mode you have doubts, uncertainty...
>
> In modern times it is Science that helps with the feedback process, the
> refinement of skills to include 'plug-ins', modules to aid you in your
> 'battles' but no matter how 'precise' these are, no matter how 'confident'
> you are the final test is an act of faith, in yourself, your culture, your
> species ...
[...]
Johannes:
As your articles are always very interesting to me - though not understanding
them completely - , especially this one does, because it reminds me again of my
'pet theory'.
I never really understood - and it gets clearer to me in these days - how a real
separation of intellectual and social patterns could be happening at last,
because I expect a separation of those two, coming along with the rise of a new
species being the bearer of a new level. It will be able to form a new pair, a
new polarity of the intellectual level pattern and the new sixth level pattern.
In that moment, a value-being would be indeed be able to get more or less rid of
the social level pattern. Another new aspect I (believe I have) discovered (at
least for me) is, what I call 'anchor-point'. Concerning my systems-concept the
only real difference to Pirsigs level-concept is, how my dimensions (in between
Pirsigs levels) are connected to each other. On the one hand, I think that new
qualities - take levels or dimensions, it plays no role - have to be considered
to be connected to each other, one following the one before, in a more specific
way than only as layers. A layer is covering the layer below, as well as does
one level to the level below, is only a sort of foundation. But it is nothing
else said in LiLa exactly HOW they are connected except encompassing or covering
it's predecessors and I found that there has to be a sort of 'intervaluation'
between them, at least more than 'below' or 'above' and since we agreed that
they depend on each other I felt the urge of finding a better descrition than
that.
An anchor-point is IMO the place, where a new level has it's roots in the one
below, or a value-being has it's roots in an older/bigger value-being and it is
giving us information about how free a value being is, when related to it's
predecessors or outer value-beings (in a bigger context). For example an
anchor-point for the social-level- AND the intellectual-level-pattern is the
physical/biological form of a human being, our body.
And our very special sytem of intellectual patterns of value as well as our very
- also varying from other humans - special system of social patterns of value,
cannot leave their place. They both can change, but they always exist in us
forming only bigger structures when connected to other humans with similar built
in systems (intellectual as well as social), but they always stay in us.
Another aspect is for me 'dimension-multiplication'. When a new dimension is
invented it multiplicates with the former to a new compound of quality.
I will postpone this for a later opportunity to avoid breaking the limits of
your patience ;-).
Our social value patterns are responsible und necessary IMO for our social
bindings and the valuing of people that surround us. Without them not the
smallest social pattern of value, what I call a social value-being, f.e the
family can't work on intellectual paterrn only, to be precise not at all; they
'work' without intellectual patterns of value very well, but without social
patterns of value they don't.
So, when you imagine a thinking, an intelligent human being, thinking just like
we do here and substract ALL social patterns of value from it - although not
very likely to exist - then you have a 'free mind'. Such a free mind is
unaffected by any social hinderings and she/he would also avoid being influenced
by anything 'lower'. She/he would be a very 'loose' creature if none else is
behaving in the same way and when you hang loose, you are more capable of
dynamic input than those, who have to stick to their social context and cannot
think and act whatever they like. So persons with lower social bindings are at
least more flexible and quicker in developing or grasping new ideas, only
connected to an existing (if there is) bigger intellectual context; but no
matter how big it is, it's binding forces will always be lower than those of the
social context (at leat I guess :-) ).
Now what I see in every human society all over the world and in all periods of
time, is the existence of the hang-loose type on the one hand and the orderly
one on the other hand, the latter the 'hang-stiff' type, to keep in this
picture.
The hang-loose type has a bigger number of intervaluations to hers/his social
(and other) surroundings and hers/his sensing-canals are more open to input,
thus the intervaluation is, what I call 'low-grade'. That means that hers/his
perception is more fuzzy and less distinct, than that of the hang-stiff type.
She/he also is distinguishing herself/himself as less distinct from hers/his
environment, than his complement.
You can't say, the one is the better human being and the other the worse human
being, they both have their function. The hang-loose type is searching for and
sensing for new ideas, but is not working them out but handing them over to the
hang-stiff type, whose job - concerning society - it is to sort this material
out and through, and integrate it to 'THE intellectual pattern of value', i.e.
the knowledge of mankind so to say. Of course there is no 100 percent hang-loose
or hang-stiff type, but there are extreme cases at both poles.
And for the hang-stiff type it is best to make, to allow only distinct
decisions or what is also called in sciences discrete decisions, just that sort
of person, Chris has been describing above; the hang-loose type, he mentioned
only in short word (just an observation ;-) ).
Now Chris is right to pull our concentration to the hang-stiff type, because
this is the dominant, concerning his percentage in human society, there is an
estimated 80-90 percentange of the hang-stiff type IMO (these are only working
concepts, I'd chosen while writing, they may come along too clumsy perhaps).
And for the reason that most of us belonging much more to the hang-loose type,
including very much Mr. Robert M. Pirsig himself, we are wondering why nobody
sees what we see; THEY have to be RESISTANT towards new thinking, because they
HAVE to consider this as being hostile.
While 'WE' have to be more dynamic (it is our job so to say :-) ).We hand over
our findings to the 'mixed' type, who is himself handing this over to the more
hang-stiff type; useless to remark that a rigorous sorting out takes place,
while this process is running. Note that these two kind of people are formimg
somewhat a polarity I've been describing above; they cannot make it on their
own. What that has to to with society, I have to postpone, I guess; it is still
not yet complete.
And a last word about it (really!); an image not being very nice nor fair, but
it seem to be also useful in my opinion. The hang-loose type is the one looking
straight forward in direction of dynamic quality while not very well being aware
of static quality and in contrary the hang-stiff type is standing, leaning his
back against the hang-loose types, looking backwards to where is static quality,
so keeping an eye on static quality while not seeing - not so good as the
hang-loose type does - dynamic quality.
I'm sorry, this has become a long one. :-(
Thanks for reading,
regards,
JoVo
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