So Chris, you didn't object ... Picking up DMB's words ... Mati mentioned [DMB] "knowledge exists not for its own sake but to improve the quality of our lives, to guide future action and generally to make the world a better place."
I'd agree this is the main objection to your suggestion. I was going to use the idea of "telos" and the fact that even individual human intellects apply themselves to making progress in practical ways, towards whatever telos they believe in, not just adding to the sum of knowledge. (Here we seem to share a telos that is evolutionary progress up through the MoQ layers - in the real world ?) However, whilst I don't think your new assertion provides the magic bullet to resolve the social / intellectual / individual confusion, (maybe Mati's suggestion helps ?) you say a lot of things that are true. Some specific points inserted in your text ... [QUOTE] 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". [IG] Sorry, no, see above. And having read to the end, whether I agreed with it or not, I don't see any rational here that leads to that conclusion anyway. - Then I say that Social Level Values should be subordinated to Intellectual ones. [IG] Well yes, this is fundamental MoQology, but the devil is in the detail of how (in a practical, real world sense.) - 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. [IG] It's clearly one thing that some social structures do, but I can't see how that is a definitive conclusion ? Interestingly, by introducing "structures" you seem to be suggesting the "collective" angle of the social level (and by contrast the individual aspect of the intellectual again) - 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. [IG] Instrument & planted are strange choices of words ? Do you think that freedom did not exist until created as an intellectual "concept" ? How does any intellectual concept get into the social level exccept from the intellectual level ? Freedom is nevertheless a key concept when looking at the relationship between intellectual and social levels. eg How should the social level constrain intellectual freedom, if at all ? Is the subordination total - in which case how do we recognise the individual / collective / governance angle ? - 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. [IG] That is an understatement - yes it must - see previous answer. 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. [IG] I responded to this earlier. as soon as you use a capitalist vs socialist slogan like "free-market" you change the dynamics of the discussion away from the intellectual to the social level (unfortunately). Let's skip the stand-of and discuss the things I wrote then? [IG] Hopefully I did ? [UNQUOTE] 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/
