Ian. you make Good points.
you write:
Which is why the "knowledge for knowledge sake" idea is interesting.
Expand on that - and leave the "isms" out for now ;-) - they just get
in the way.
Ian
and then you write (or actually before, but I'm trying to summarise)
On 7/15/08, Ian Glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you said
"I seem to magically turn into Stalin in peoples heads, and the
ideological stand-off begins."
My point precisely. My comments are all about changing the rules of
that debate - to avoid that recurring useless, destructive,
interminable standoff.
I call this the "'somebody else's problem' problem". You see that
standoff as "the others" problem, not yours / ours jointly. You are
putting yourself in a "camp" (with DMB) and projecting that position
outwards. I call that "looking for a fight" - couldn't be better
designed to create a standoff if you tried.
I'm just asking for more careful argumentation - choice of language,
respect etc (from all camps) - so we can make progress.
Your underlying position I haven't seen anything to disagree with yet.
Ian
Point taken.
I'm not trying to make a plea for any ism as such, I am just trying to have
a structured debate - so I tried to line it out below, so - what do you
think of it?
> - First I put it to you that the nature of the intellectual level is
> that of
> the "Quest for knowledge for knowledge's sake alone"
>
> - Then I say that Social Level Values should be subordinated to
> Intellectual
> ones.
>
> - But if Intellectual Values is the movements towards better
> understanding,
> then I have to draw the conclusion that social structures should be
> modelled
> into serving that as much as possible.
>
> - Looking at this I notice that "freedom" and concepts like that more
> and
> more looks like social value patterns - they seem to be instruments
> which
> the intellectual level have planted in the social level to help itself.
>
> - Then It comes to me, quite naturally, that if social structures are
> to be
> remodelled to serve the intellectual level better (and thus evolution)
> well
> then the social value pattern that is the _concept of "freedom"_ may
> have to
> be looked over as well.
>
> The problem occurs when I propose that the freedom that is free market
> enterprises may have to be restricted in order to serve the
> intellectual
> level (as they are clearly social level patterns) I seem to magically
> turn
> into Stalin in peoples heads, and the ideological stand-off begins.
Let's skip the stand-of and discuss the things I wrote then?
Subject: Re: [MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual
Level
Chris, Marsha, DMB, et al,
Hurray ... we've got there ... again.
Yes any "organised" pursuit of knowledge is a social pattern, founded
on faith in a tradition - like science, (even more so if it is used as
the basis of a form of governance).
Which is why the "knowledge for knowledge sake" idea is interesting.
Expand on that - and leave the "isms" out for now ;-) - they just get
in the way.
Ian
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/
