Ian: Precisely Ron ... telos lies in mthological tradition - the quest for knowledge is not independent of this, it's not incidental / accidental.
Unfortunately threads are being conflated and balooning into talking about everything at once again - oh well. Ron: Not to beat the linguistic drum again, but what Chris seems to be doing is attempting to define an abstract universal in order to define the intellectual level when the intellectual level is unique to its particular culture. There are universal intellectual themes that emerge cross culturally, but to build on this muddies the waters about how intellect is defined within a society. His stressing the dominance of the intellectual level asserts SOM over social values. Which as Platt likes to point out, fails to meet human needs adequately, but if he stresses the societies value of it's intellectuals FREEDOM he back treads on his original stance. Chris states: "The freedom of the individual is thus not a intellectual pattern, it is a social pattern that has been created by the intellectual level to further it's goals." which is kinda paradoxical, if society doesent value the FREEDOM of it's intellectuals then how may intellectuals create their own FREEDOM? Intellectual FREEDOM rests squarely with societal value of its intellectuals. If society does not value it's intellectuals, it's intellectuals have no FREEDOM to shape society. ie. Bolshevism I do not see how you may have a conversation about intellectual value without using the word FREEDOM . Social FREEDOM gives birth to intellectual value. 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/
