From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jun 08 2003 - 01:25:26 BST
Paul, Steve, Scott, etc,
Paul said:
In general, I see a social pattern of value as a
specific group of people, the UK Labour Party, the MOQ
forum members, the Roman Catholic Church, the United
Nations
dmb says:
As a specific group of people? Here's why I think that doesn't work: Take
the UN, the ACLU, the union of conerned scientists or whatever example you
like best. Think of an organization in society that is founded upon
intellectual principles and is dedicated to the protection and preservation
of intellectual values. Do you think we could still rightly say that it is a
social level organization? I don't. Sure, colleges and universities serve a
social function and the students love to socialize, but it goes past the
social level, hopefully, and is dedicated to intellectual values above all.
I mean it doesn't work to define social level values as groups of people,
because some groups hold intellectual values - as a group.
Scott said:
I've found it useful to see the distinction between social and intellectual
levels in my own thought, rather than in externals. Social level thinking is
that which is driven by social concerns, and is not much under my control.
What Buddhists call monkey-mind. On examination, one can usually see that it
is driven by fear, greed, anger, etc. It is the "when he said X I should
have said Y" kind of internal monologue.
dmb says:
I think of fear, greed and anger as biological level things. Not only do
animals experience these emotions to various degrees, it is the social level
values that tame them. But I'd agree that we all have social values as a
part of our make up, that it has an internal dimension that motivate all of
us. We couldn't function in the world without, except to escape into the
wilderness and live life as an animal.
Scott said:
Intellectual level thinking is, then, thinking for the thought itself. What
scientists or philosophers do when they are not influenced by dreams of
Nobel prizes or tenure, or sounding good in a discussion group. Or what
anyone does when they are being mindful. Intellectual thought is autonomous
thought -- driven by the thought and not the ego of the thinker. (Ego, as I
see it, is a social level phenomenon).
dmb says:
Right. If he thinks the prize is more important than the science, then he
betraying intellectuals values. Pirsig talks about his frat brothers selling
out in this way and condemns it quite nicely.
Scott:
In practice, since the intellectual level is young, the intellectual thought
is rare and when present, mixed in with the social (e.g., a thought sequence
can start on the intellectual level but soon gets overwhelmed by social
concerns.)
dmb says:
Not only that. But the intellectual level depends on social values for its
very existence. So, by the author's reckoning, whenever there are
intellectual values, there is also every level below it too. The levels are
cumulative, so to speak. They're like nested spheres so that the higher ones
envelope and include the lower ones as part of their own structure. You
can't have organisms without matter first and you can have human society
without human bodies first. Anything else is pretty hard to imagine.
Thanks.
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 : Sun Jun 08 2003 - 01:24:56 BST