From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2003 - 02:13:01 GMT
Steve and all:
Steve said:
I think DMB has been saying that the intellectual level is not defined as
"thinking about thinking" but rather that it certainly includes "thinking
about thinking." It may have been me that misinterpreted it as a definition.
DMB says:
Right. "Thinking about thinking" is an encyclopedia's definition of
philsophy and if philosophy isn't intellectual, then nothing is. This was
never meant to suggest that the intellectual level includes nothing but
philosophy. I only thought it helped to see the difference between the 3rd
and 4th levels. Its meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive or definitive.
Steve said:
I think we all agree on the point that "thinking about thinking" must be
included as intellectual, or am I wrong? Since I struggle so much to
understand the levels, I was glad to be able to feel certain that this
particular type of thinking and also to agree that thinking may be too broad
a term to define the intellectual level.
DMB says:
I certainly hope you're not wrong. I had hoped to make this very obvious.
And I agree that "thinking" is too broad to define the intellectual level
and part of what I was trying to say is that the social level involves
thinking too. I mean, how could a creature without any thoughts believe in
cosmology stories or myths? For that matter, how could even the most primary
culture exists without thinking creatures? The story of creation we find in
the bible expresses a whole bunch of thoughts. The big bang theory of the
origins of the universe could never exist without such stories as a source
from which to derive our intellectual descriptions, but clearly these two
are different from each other. Or a much more simple example is the
difference between talking, which is how these creation myths were passed
on, and linguistics. In the first case there is just talking and in the
second case there is talking about talking.
Steve said:
Wims' definition of "copied rationale" has been useful to me as well. But
it has also had some problems for me. For example, if I decide to sport a
bare mid-riff in a conscious attempt to try to look like Brittany Spears,
have I copied a rationale?
DMB says:
Why do I feel so horny all of a sudden? Ooops, I did it again. Another
juvenile joke. I'm on a roll this weekend. But seriously, I can't make any
sense of Wims "copied rationale".
Steve said:
In the case of the scientific method, scientists no longer think about
whether or not it is a good method. The scientific method is called upon as
a rationale for approaching a problem in a certain way which is copied from
other scientists who came before or as defense of the truth of a particular
result obtained through the scientific process.
DMB says:
Show me a scientist who has adopted the scientific method without thinking
long and hard about it, and I'll show you an incompetent scientist.
Describing the experiment is very much a part of publishing process in
science. They have to be accutely aware of the method at every step in order
to produce valid data. But it is true that we live in a scientific age where
many people simply put trust in scientists in much the same way that people
tend to automatically trust judges, cops, priests and other authority
figures. But that's a different topic.
Steve said:
A lot of thinking about thinking was going on when scientists and
philosophers were interested in defining and defending the method itself,
but now the method has a static latch as a rationale.
DMB says:
Well, lots of the issues have already been worked out and settled to the
extent that science can move forward in its task, but there certainly are
still philosophers of science thinking about this stuff. And if most of it
had not already latched, there wouldn't be much for them to do.
Steve said:
Small "d" democracy is used as a rationale for making decisions. This
rationale is called upon without thinking about thinking. It is a rationale
that has a static latch in society. We have learned to accept democracy as
fair and scientific results as true without thinking about our thinking,
though I think democracy could be thought of as a product of "thinking about
thinking" and thus is an intellectual pattern. On the other hand, the
pattern of deciding based on majority opinion may have evolved in some
other way (and probably was. It seems like a social improvement on "might
makes right" and is probably social.)
DMB says:
I think democracy was invented by thinking about the assumptions in the
existing power relations. It was born out of a critical examination of
things like divine authority, absolute monarchy and the inhertance of wealth
and power. And we're still working it out. In early "democracies" only elite
men had the vote. This was more about priviledges than rights. I think we
should pass a law that makes it illegal for talk radio listeners to vote.
Just kidding.
Steve said:
In the Brittany Spears example, I certainly haven't copied the result of
someone else's "thinking about thinking" so the pattern of trying to dress
like Brittany Spears must be social.
DMB says:
I have little doubt that such a thing would be social. Recall Pirsig's
comments about celebrity being central to the social level. Unfortunately,
our gods and heros have been reduced to pop singers and such. Personally, I
prefer Brittany Murphy. Naturally, because I'm red-blooded, the best thing
would be to have them both. Mmmm. Two blonde Brittanys. Huh? What's that?
Oh. Now you're horny too? Don't worry about it. That's normal. ;-)
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 : Mon Mar 03 2003 - 02:13:55 GMT