Re: Tri' thu+'c la` gi`

[Tuan Pham <tuan.pham@unsw.edu.au>]

>Hi ba'c Tua^'n et al,
>
>While intelligentsia was THE elite in old East Asia and  Russia, it
>finds no place in a modern society, where  market economy works. There
>was the intellectual class in some old oriental societies, but in modern
>society with market economy, the intellectuals can not form their own
>class. They are absorbed in market economy that recognizes functions and
>not missions. In modern society the most intellectuals are professionals
>and not intelligentsias.
>
>Cheers,
>La^m

Hi La^m and all

I might be wrong, but people here who are in closer touch 
with Russian history may be able to correct me. I have
an impression (and it's just an impression) that
the intellectual 's thinking is both RIGOROUS and CREATIVE,
while for the intelligentsia the "rigorous" component is not a 
necessary requirement! :-) The SCHOLAR is only capabe of 
rigorous thought, the INTELLIGENTSIA qualify mainly as creative
thinkers, the INTELLECTUAL should be capable of both.
Most "si~" in the old days were scholars, only a few qualified
as intellectuals - Vu+o+ng Du+o+ng Minh, Gia Ca't Lu+o+.ng...

It must be kept in mind I am taliking in terms of impressions
amd connotations not rigorous definitions. The hair splitters 
can have a field day if they wish! :)

In the modern world with its universal education, widespread
tertiary education, and plentiful opportunities for self-
education (books, libraries, internet), the boundary between
the "i" (intellectual) and non-i has largely disappeared. 
To be an i has become largely a matter of personal vocation. 
Having received the necessary training in rigorous and 
creative thinking, it is up to the individual to decide 
whether to use 100% of that to earning a living (becoming 
a professional) or to use some of that to contribute 
to social change in other ways. For most people it will be a 
part-time occupation. 

REAL social progress (as opposed to mere physical progress 
such as better cars and better computers) is largely a product 
of such part-time activities. An example is the concern with 
the environment which is a fairly recent phenomenon
originating from the grass roots. Look also at all the people
who take part in various NGOs in their own countries and poorer
countries.

In my opinion far too much emphasis is often put on the
SYSTEM and it is forgotten that it is the individuals who make
all the difference. Systems are created to maintain a status quo,
individuals are the engine of change and progress. The best
systems are those that allow the individuals to perform this
function. The "i", whether part time or full time, will always 
be a strong driving force behind social progress.

Cheers
Tuan Pham