Hi Chris, Peter, et al, You said Can we please stop putting a = sign between the intellectual level and individual freedom.
I'm not, I'm just pointing out the fuzziness that exists in the discussion here; the complexity (of what freedom really is / should be and what its limitations are / should be), that is causing our difficulty in resolving it to snappy distinctions. ie I agree already. You also said The intellectual Level IS limited by the social level. Jeez. I agree already. Tell this to the individual freedom fanatics. The question is "how" is it limited - what kinds of limitation are "valid" - valuable, moral, quality, etc. The complicated bit, the difficult bit. Why did you feel the need to "educate" me about the social and intellectual levels as defined ? Ask yourself that. "Innate Instinct" is too fuzzy an answer - emotivism (?) - doesn't resolve any of the collective individual aspects one bit. (BTW Peter Corteen's simple comment is also relevant - I'll come to that.) This is about "valid governance" - valid social limits on individual freedom - rather than a choice of existing "isms" - as Churchill almost said - one ism is the worst, except for all the other isms. Can we not be more creative ? I'd also like to come back to the knowledge for knowledge sake idea ... could you relate your point to what I already said. Ian On 7/15/08, Christoffer Ivarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ham and Ian. and everybody, this about Marxism and freedom and stuff > > [Ham] > > ... and the most ludicrous of all: > > > [Chris] > > > > > abolishing the capitalist system so that social values such as > > > profit isn't allowed to subjugate humanity's strive towards knowledge. > > > > > > [Ham] > > For the life of me, I can't fathom how the rewards of research, > production, > > and marketing > > in the capitalist system subjugate humanity's quest for knowledge. Aside > > from the fact that this is a disingenuous assertion, how would > Marxism--even > > ideally implemented--increase man's acquisition of knowledge?? > > > > Just as Marx did, I am the first to recognize the great, great services the > capitalistic system has done for the development of mankind. However, > looking at it all as logically as possible - and from a MOQ perspective at > that - I can only conclude that the way we should develop is towards a a > state where the intellectual level (The Quest for knowledge) is not directed > by, and led in directions of what has high social value - I.e. what one can > make money of. > > The idea, the basic idea is to work towards this, to create a society where > the central aspect isn't that of acquiring social value (money) so that one > can gain biological, social and perhaps intellectual benefits accordingly - > no, in a communist society the social structures will have been moulded into > serving the intellectual level, and not the other way around. No one will be > a slave under the need to gain funds to survive, because it will not be an > adversarial based system. Instead everybody will have the possibilities to > expand their knowledge and understanding, in whatever direction the > intellectual level takes them - not that everybody will of course, even if > the Quest for Knowledge for Knowledge's sake Alone is made to be the highest > Social Value (Social values can be changed remember?) not everybody will > choose to do so. But more will. > > So in short, a Marxist system is one where the intellectual level is allowed > to be in charge at all times. Now that's evolutionarily moral. > > --- > > [Ian] wrote: > I'm catching-up / summarizing first. As MoQists we hold Individual > (Freedoms) in some sense above Social / Collective / Cosmic (Duties / > Responsibilities), and we hold Intellectual (PoV's) in some sense > above Social (PoV's). But ... exactly how ... > > (This thread embodies the recurring difficulty with defining > Intellectual as against Individual and defining Social/Collective > against Individual, hence even the Social / Intellectual distinction > still has some fuzziness. I have always preferred a view that treats > the social and intellectual as one level - and acknowledges a spectrum > of individual and collective patterns of value within it .... but > that's just me .... avoiding conflict - I like fuzzy.) > > We all value "freedom" - the liberals by defintion, and for the > conservatives it's a mantra to beat liberals with - and let the > partizan rhetorical battles commence - but not here please. What we > argue about is, that whilst intellectual patterns / individual freedom > are "higher" than collective / social patterns, we cannot agree any > valid limitations on freedoms by those collective aspects - markets or > social duties, whatever. "Governance" is my word for this problematic > issue - of limits to indivdual freedom - any or none. > > > [Chris] > Can we please stop putting a = sign between the intellectual level and > individual freedom. Freedom is a VERRY complicated word. Are we talking > about positive or negative freedoms? And really - Freedom the way it is > used most of the time is a Social Level Weapon. > > And I'm not saying the social level is evil! We have been though that > discussion a hundred times already (notably with Platt) It's just that since > the intellectual level is too fuzzy, people tend to place social values as > intellectual - just because now, in our time, the moral code is that freedom > is a Good thing, that doesn't make freedom as such the intellectual level, > but only a concept that is now a social Value (perhaps originated in the > intellectual level, but that's beside the point). > > But, let me comment on your last paragraph here: The intellectual Level IS > limited by the social level. Today as always before. There must be a solid > social base on which the intellectual level can operate, but I simply say: > Let's make the social structures serve the intellectual level as much as > possible! Many of you talk about the dangers of limiting "personal reedom" > - well, not considering that that is a very fuzzy concept, it still smells > social level supremacy from afar. To best serve the supremacy of the > intellectual level, and thus the evolution and humanity in general, we may > have to take away "freedoms" such as the freedom to freely compete on a > capitalistic market. We may have to take away many things which many today > consider "freedoms" - but these things will all be social values, and at > that values that is tied to the social value pattern called the "free > market". > > As long as people have the best opportunities to follow their innate > instinct of understanding things (The Intellectual Level) then morality is > served. Evolution is served. > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
