Role of the Intellect in Society

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinod:

 

I understand your point here, but what about societies

that don't have intellectuals?

 

Your post reminds me of the old bumper sticker, " If

you think education is expensive, try living without

one. "

 

China under Mao decimated an entire generation of

intellectuals. Thirty years after Mao's death, the

effects of this loss of intellect across Chinese

society are still widely felt.

 

For any Chinese whose normal years of schooling fell

between 1964 and 1977, education never took place.

China has an entire generation of people in their 50's

who were cheated of more productive lives as a result

of no learning in their youth.

 

The Chinese education system as a whole is a throwback

to the 19th Century, and it may take China generations

to develop an adequate education system, since that

generation of intellectuals was wiped out during the

Cultural Revolution.

 

The Cultural Revolution set back Chinese medicine,

IMHO. The skill and knowledge level of doctors in

China today, especially those of that generation,

suffered as a result of the politics of that era.

 

Certainly, the peasent in the field may or may not

lead a more functional life (smoking, drinking and

gambling run rampant in Chinese society) than the

intellectual, but in China, that life is " nasty, short

and brutish, " to quote Thomas Hobbes.

 

Intellectuals are a precious resource in society, and

China is a perfect example of a society that tried to

do without them (as well as Cambodia).

 

While I see the point you are making, it seems you may

be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

Kind regards, Jack

>

> This post reminded me of a converstaion I had when I

> was young with my

> father. I asked him " Acchan - how do we know what is

> true? There are

> so many opinions and many seem to be

> contradictions. " - he answered

> " We can not know - all opinions are just that -

> opinions. Lao Tsu said

> 'the Tao that can be named is not the true Tao'. All

> attempts to

> 'conceptualize' reality will be limited because the

> human mind is only

> dealing from an individual perspective - and the

> 'one' is not visible

> to our analysis. We percieve through our senses and

> the mind all of

> which are limited in their realm of perceptions. So

> there is no

> absolute religion - philosophy - or science - each

> and every person

> has their own religion - philosophy - or science.

> None are greater

> than others. It is not through mind (logic,

> reasoning, analysis) that

> we live our lives - it is through our good instincts

> that we live

> successful lives - it is the choices based on our

> instincts that

> determine what we do as opposed to what we think. If

> you have good

> instincts you have a good chance to make good

> choices this will

> determine your success in life not your intellect.

> Many great

> logicians have dysfunctional lives and many

> uneducated people (that

> might never analyze anything)who have good instincts

> may live healthy

> happy lives. Many people think 'I have a greater

> logic and rationale

> than you therfore I am better than you' - this is

> illogical and

> irrational - it is not supported by the observable

> facts. Anytime you

> hear or read someone elses opinions simply realize

> this is one

> perspective do not put it up or down see everything

> as equal and

> personal. There can never be any absolute in

> religion - philosophy -or

> science - these things are evoloving with us as we

> move along as

> individuals and as a species. "

>

> Karl Popper's perspective is just a perspective just

> as the science

> that he criticizes is a perspective - just as those

> who criticize

> Popper are also simply stating their personal

> perspectives - reality

> is the inclusion of these many perspectives along

> with the infinite

> number of things we do not know. Perspectives should

> be put in

> perspective - when we read or hear other's opinions

> - we either agree

> - disagree - or we are uninterested.

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Chinese Traditional Medicine , Jack Sweeney <mojavecowboy

wrote:

>

> Dear Vinod:

>

> I understand your point here, but what about societies

> that don't have intellectuals?

 

I am not exactly sure what you mean Jack. If you thought I was saying

there is some advantage in intellect over other forms of knowing then

this would not be correct. My view is the opposite - intellect is

often an obstacle to human success. Intellect is at the root of many

of humanities largest problems. Intellect is a relative term and has

no real meaning. In my mind 'intellectuals' are a type of consciouness

exsisting in all cultures and cultural groups - intelect is a way of

thinking of certain individuals of a Yang nature but intellect does

not in any way guarantee more success as a human being. Intellectul

understandings change according to culture and historical context.

They are relative. I was raised in a culture that had many modern

thinkers with modern educations and modern understandings - but we

also have people living in a cultural context that was existant

hundreds or even thousands of years ago - all of these groups have all

of the same functions as the other groups within them - technicians -

scientists - mystics - metaphysicians - priests (religeous

practioners) - philosophers - farmers - housewives - criminals -

craftspeople - traders (business people)- healers - etc. These are all

different ways that the human mind works in people of different

natures. One style of thinking is not better than another - each

reaches success according to it's own terms. There is Yin 'knowing'

(intuition and or synthasis) and there is Yang 'knowing' (analysis and

or intellect) these types of knowledge are not superior to each other

they are simply different ways of apprehending and functioning within

reality. The greatest minds have both Yin and Yang consciouness fully

developed within themselves and use these forms of perception

according to the need.

 

The many subjects we discuss here were formulated by many individuals

- many of them were Yang in their constitition and came to these

understandings through an intellectual path. Yet just as many of them

- and often the most revered of them - came to their understandings

not through analysis but through intuition and direct perception.

 

>

> Your post reminds me of the old bumper sticker, " If

> you think education is expensive, try living without

> one. "

 

But as history has revealed Mao did not stop the great intellectual

pathway of China it is in many ways greater and more advanced than

ever. The suppressed spirit of a people does not go away - how can it

- it is inherant in our human nature - it goes underground and later

explodes into a dynamic creativity. This is why China is in a cultural

rebirth with creativity occuring in the Yin areas of consciouness like

the arts and the spiritual and healing sciences - and in the Yang

areas of consciouness like intellectual pursuits and business. Any

attempts by government to suppress the inherant nature of mankind are

doomed to failure - thankfully the human spirit is not so easily wiped

out. This is why so many constuctions of moralists do not work because

they are not compatable to human nature - they are just ideas and do

not relate to the real wotld - like sexual regulations - they do not

work and can not work becuase people can not stop being who they are.

>

> China under Mao decimated an entire generation of

> intellectuals. Thirty years after Mao's death, the

> effects of this loss of intellect across Chinese

> society are still widely felt.

 

Mao did not destroy the intellectula spirit of the people but it

destroyed the instuitions of intellectual persuit and these

institutions will have to be rebuilt on a more modern and inclusive

track. Traditinally the institutions of higher knowledge were very

exclusive and only availavble to a few - now they have a chance to

create a natural system that allows the participation of anyone who

chooses to participate.

>

> For any Chinese whose normal years of schooling fell

> between 1964 and 1977, education never took place.

> China has an entire generation of people in their 50's

> who were cheated of more productive lives as a result

> of no learning in their youth.

>

> The Chinese education system as a whole is a throwback

> to the 19th Century, and it may take China generations

> to develop an adequate education system, since that

> generation of intellectuals was wiped out during the

> Cultural Revolution.

 

The educational system of China before the revolution was antiquated

and very narrow. Educational systems because they are instruments of

the state simply reflect the needs of the leaders and not the people -

this was true of the old village sysytems - the Imperial Mandarin

sytems - and the Communist systems - all were narrow expressions that

dod not take into account the true needs of society. The further China

gets away from these old village and government systems the better -

it will not be easy but as we can see it is interseting. If we look at

the young generation in China there is much crative energy at work

there in many levels of society - let us see what they make out of it.

 

The problems of the undevloped areas of China are true in all

traditional societies. My father as an example lived in a time and

place where most historical knowledge is not available - he had no

Internet - no library - no book shops - no teachers - no schools -

etc. But he was passionate and determined and became a medical, yoga,

and cultural scholar. He had never met a Chinese person yet he taught

himself Chinese and eventually translated many Chinese medical and

philisophical works into Malayalam - he did the same with Arabic and

English - translating many papers from these languages into Malayalam.

Yet his personal system of life is a simple Yoga system which puts

much more emphasis on simple ordinary natural life as the foundation

of a good life - he believes this approach is suited for Intellectuals

and everyone else.

>

> The Cultural Revolution set back Chinese medicine,

> IMHO. The skill and knowledge level of doctors in

> China today, especially those of that generation,

> suffered as a result of the politics of that era.

 

I can not agree with this becuase regardless of the horrible excesses

of the mindless Communists - still the medical system in China today

is at it's peak with the education of physicians and research into

medical issues being more widely available than ever in history. Many

of the instituitions in the education -research - pharmacology -

medicinal herb production - hospital - fields having just been

developed in the past twenty years they never exsisted before.

 

>

> Certainly, the peasent in the field may or may not

> lead a more functional life (smoking, drinking and

> gambling run rampant in Chinese society) than the

> intellectual, but in China, that life is " nasty, short

> and brutish, " to quote Thomas Hobbes.

 

I think this is true what you quote - old China was horrible - new

China is somewhat better. I am sure that few of the young people

setting in the Internet cafes want to go back to the old systems

communist or otherwise.

>

> Intellectuals are a precious resource in society, and

> China is a perfect example of a society that tried to

> do without them (as well as Cambodia).

 

Jack you are very wrong to think I am denagrating intellectuals - I am

an intellectual myself - my point is that intellect is just one way of

knowing - in my own case I had a researchers mentality for many years

but for past several years I have been trying to honor and develop my

Yin mentality. Why? Because I have come to understand that my

intellect has never solved any of the major problems of my life it was

good instincts that have given me the degree of success as a person

that I have had - meaning health and happiness. Any person who would

not give up intellectual persuits (which are mainly abstract)for the

living of a happy and healthy life (which is not abstrsct)has their

prioraties wrong. Intellect as we often define it is a kind of

escapism or self preoccupation or self entertainment and does very

little if anything to improve the quality of life for oneself or

others - in fact many people living such a life are completely

dysfunctional. Even professor Einstein was unable to take care of his

basic human needs and in the later part of his life went around

unkempt and in a fog of his mental persuits. As the Bible and every

other religious book in history has stated - we can not come to God

through the intellect - the intellect is limited so has no chance of

knowing the 'truth'. In Judaism and Christianity the development of

knowledge is the basic symbol of our seperation from God - this is the

symbol of the eating of the Apple of knowledge in the Garden of Eden.

Lao Tsu said 'The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao'.

>

> While I see the point you are making, it seems you may

> be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

As I said I think you miss my point. My point is a warning of advise

to those who think intellect is somehow superior - it is not - in fact

it actually plays a minor role in human affairs because even it is

subject to the laws of our personal nature. Actually we are lucky that

we are not dependent on our intellects for success becuase there is no

consensus in any intellectual area. Just in the past few days we have

been discussing Karl Popper who has come forward to challenge every

intellectual concept of scientific inquiry becuase it is based on

faulty logic. All intellectual models are personal and may or may not

have general relevancy. Regardless of the personal models of reality

one might hold or share with others - in the long run this is not very

relavant to the general human condition because it also is changing in

it's intellectual understanding and needs. Vast majority of the human

race are not intellectuals this does not mean those people are not

just as valuable as the intellectuals - in fact the proportion of

useful intellectuals who contribute useful things to society is much

less than other useful members of society.

 

Many of us can see in our own families the truth of this - my mother

who has no intelectual bone at all and my father who is a great

scholar play and fulffil their own roles in our family and I would

assure you that no one in my family no matter how much they love and

admire my father for his intellect and service to society would ever

think his contrubution to our family is greater than my mothers. In

fact most people do not love my father for his intellect (few people

even know anything of the greatness of his mind) they love him for the

greatness of his spirit. We have a similar situation in reverse in

another couple who live near my family in India - the man is a rice

farmer who has become a supervisor and is very intelligent but far

from an 'intellectual' and his wife is a school teacher in a small

village school - she is an intellectual and has done a great personal

study of certain Sanskrit texts and can endlessly discuss the

subtlities of the meaning of certain vowel structures in Sanskrit -

which of course alters meaning - all of this she learned on her own as

she never was educated in Sanskrit. Both of these people are widely

admired in their famalies and communaties.

 

There is no advantage for intellectuals to set themselves in

opposition to other ways of percieving - it isn't intelligent. I

originally started this thread to state my opinionn that Shen

development is essential for higher human success - this is true

whether one is an intellectual or not. So it was really an

encouragement for intellectuals not to let their intellects act as an

obsticle to life success.