From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Fri Nov 28 2003 - 15:43:19 GMT
Hi David
David said:
Do we not say 'intellectual' when conflict emerges between society and
the individual that goes beyond mere superficial/material/power
individual gain within the society.
Paul:
As I understand it, "intellectual" is not to be equated with
"individual," but your point about something "beyond...power [or]
individual gain within the society" strikes a chord. I think power and
individual gain is static social quality.
David said:
The intellectual is holding views, unacceptable to society generally,
for their own sake and not for personal gain, or because of a desire to
change the society hence in terms of dynamic change. Many myths explore
the notion of the emergence of the individual/ego and the heroic
conflict involved in this.
Paul:
I think the heroic conflict resulting in the emergence of an individual,
as you describe, is a static vs.Dynamic conflict rather than a social
vs. intellectual conflict. Intellectual patterns can be common or
individual, just as social patterns are. I think a basic definition of
social patterns is "relationships between humans," and it is these
relationships which define one's social identity, including your
individuality. Intellectual patterns are also part of one's identity and
are less static, but they are not the whole thing.
David said:
A social system/culture has a static aspect, where the individual is
involved in dynamic change/conflict or trying to make new possibilities
possible we are talking about possible intellectual phenomena.
Paul:
Again, I don't equate "intellect" with "individual." I think you are
describing a static-Dynamic process although it may result in the
creation of new social and intellectual patterns.
David said:
All depends where you want to draw a line and call something
intellectual.
Paul:
Indeed, this is the trouble.
David said:
Takes a certain sort of intellect to improve the way you cut your flint
axe. All DQ activity implies intellect, otherwise it is random/accident
and has no quality.
Paul:
I don't agree that "all DQ activity implies intellect," it seems to me
to be needlessly anthropomorphic to describe *all* activity in terms of
the human capacity for abstract thought.
I also think that describing evolution in terms of "betterness," as does
the MOQ, makes the terms "random" and "accident" as inappropriate and
misleading as the word "design."
Cheers
Paul
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 : Fri Nov 28 2003 - 15:44:36 GMT