From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jul 30 2005 - 11:55:43 BST
Hi Mark,
> Sam, you threw out a lot of ideas in your starting post, some of
> which I see as an attempt to get your honesty-truth, Eudaemonic MOQ
> ideas a head-start in the discussion. This sort of sly, anglican
> attempt to set the boundaries of intellectual investigation WILL NOT
> STAND. At least not until I've had a chance to set the boundaries of
> intellectual investigation, in my sly progressive way.
;-P
> This is ok, but let's use "Bio" rather than "Org, since many of the
> issues I hope to settle will involve the use of the word
> "biological."
OK
> Can we also agree that the first four conflicts are
> always in play in every human being, but that, for the purposes of
> our discussion we need to focus on Org-Soc and Soc-Int, with the Stat-
> Dyn conflict being the driving force behind moral disputes within the
> limits of these two moral codes?
Sounds OK. Let's see how it works in practice.
> And can we agree that it's fair to say that individual human beings
> may be described as Bio-Dominant, Soc-Dominant, or Int-Dominant? It
> seems clear that the character Lila, with her overriding interest in
> food, drink, sex, is B-D. Rigel, with his emphasis on social
> convention, and his fear that people like Lila pose a threat to
> society, as well as his hostility toward the Intellectual level, can
> be said to be S-D. Phaedrus is I-D, aloof, lost in his thoughts,
> finding he must often drop down outta the clouds and force himself to
> relate to others on the Bio and Soc levels. And can we agree that
> none of this means that Lila and Rigel don't have thoughts, or that
> Phaedrus never enjoys a good steak or sex?
Hmm. Not comfortable with this. I'd much rather talk about particular
*actions* being B-D or S-D or whatever. I think as soon as you start talking
about human beings being B-D then you're on the road to the ruthless
elimination of germs. An individual human being may consistently display a
preference for one over another, but I think the root of a great deal of
evil comes from the classification of a person by what they do. (It's the
Catholic in me: love the sinner, hate the sin). It's what paves the way for
talk about 'them' (see my reply to Ant on that, and the link to the post on
my blog).
> Finally, I think there is a lot of confusion about the word
> "intellectual," as can be seen by the dozens of ant-intellectual
> posts that have occurred here in just the last several days. These
> anti-intellectual posts seem, at times, to regard intellectuals as,
> what, people with college degrees, university professors, people who
> read a lot of difficult books? Or just people with whom the
> intellectual-basher disagrees? There doesn't seem to be any clear
> definition, yet the intellectual bashing that goes on here does have
> a common underlying theme: the objectionable intellectual is the one
> who disagrees with the clearly identifiable political agenda
> personified by GWB in the US, and to a somewhat lesser extent, by
> Blair in the UK.
Did you really expect me to agree with this? My understanding of intellect
has been on display quite a lot recently; I suspect it has a lot in common
with your notion of FRH (when are we going to return to that thread by the
way?); and I think the equation of the intellectual level with one or other
political perspective is daft. Hence I think it perfectly possible to be a
conservative and intellectual, in just the same way as it is possible to be
a socialist or anarchist and intellectual. I think the ultimate truths
transcend those political differences - which is where religion comes in.
But then, that automatically disqualifies me from enlightenment, according
to some perspectives (which would presumably also disqualify the Buddha on
similar grounds, but there we go).
>
> So, I think the discussion will benefit if we can come to some
> agreement about what is meant by the word "intellectual." Used as a
> noun, I see any I-D individual as an "intellectual," but this does
> not preclude a B-D or S-D from having higher quality "intellectual"
> thoughts. Further, intellectuals may and certainly do have
> disagreements about what constitutes a "high-quality" idea, but,
> among intellectuals, there is a certain procedure for working this
> out for themselves: discussion and arguments, based on evidence,
> derived from experience. B-D and S-D individuals can certainly
> participate in such discussions, but their participation will be
> fruitful only if they are willing to put their B-D S-D inclinations
> on the back-burner, and accept the established protocols of
> intellectual exchange. If they can't, or won't, then the discussion
> will almost certainly degenerate to social-level finger-wagging
> (Rigel) or exasperated insults (Lila).
I think you need to read the link which Ian posted, re Pons and
Fleishchmann, and also the link I gave to Paul with an article from the
Guardian. I would suggest a simpler description of the intellectual level:
participation in the intellectual level is possible in so far as the
participant can accept the truth "I might be wrong" (and that is an index of
emotional maturity). There is then the possibility of a genuine intellectual
exchange. As soon as someone tries to shut down a dialogue by appeal to
prejudice then we have a reassertion of (normally) S-D behaviour, wouldn't
you agree?
Not sure where this gets us, but the conversation is a good one.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 30 2005 - 22:38:38 BST