Chris, <snip>
> [mel] > > But regulation for the ideological reason should be looked > > at very carefully. Despite the root-word 'idea', the movement > > that spawns an ideology is usually social, and the sweeping > > 'feel-good' sloganeering of the social rarely has fine powers > > of discrimination in the world. "Truth" is bottled for its own > > protection and, thus becomes unusable. I think that sounds > > like Static Quality. > > [chris] > I disagree. Indeed an ideology may be a purely social level phenomena, > however, the intellectual level must use the social level in order to get > biological bodies to work to further Intellectual Good. > > Secondly, Truth is always within a paradigm, and I join with Anthony McWatt > in disliking the words "Static Quality" - rather there are stable patterns > of value, and then there are DQ (perhaps there is a hazy middle as well when > DQ is being realized, but that's deep metaphysics). mel: Truth is not 'owned' by the paradigm, rather at best a paradigm is a set-limited structure of impermanence. Paradigms quickly outlive their usefulness, but they are often slavishly supported by individuals who have experienced the 'thrill-of-discovery' within them. <snip> > [mel] > > The intellectual level isn't 'victimized' by the market, it's > > part of the aggregate of the market in some partial > > 'ven diagram' way. > > [chris] > I disagree. Since I view the intellectual level as being The Quest for > Knowledge, I identify it as being very immoral for this Quest to be > restricted by what's profitable. mel: Ah, I was speaking from the consumer/buyer's point of view. The Quest-for-Knowledge, just like the search-to-purchase, is not about what is profitable; it is about what is preferrable. (What is preferrable underlies this forum.) <snip> > > > > mel: > > Just to repeat, regulations that remove restraint-of-trade > > by low quality behavior and avoid creating regulation > > based restraint-of-trade (potentially even more damaging) > > are potentially in the service of DQ. > > [chris] > It is my belief that no static/stable pattern of value can be "in service" > of DQ. And I also believe that going down that road, as to justify things by > referring to a mystical entity called DQ that likes some things and > dislikes other things will rightly place us in the "New Age" box. mel: This is a sort of 'negative proof'. A static pattern can be said to be "in the service of DQ" to the extent that it does not prevent the experience of DQ. Other static patterns can be thought of as restraining the experience of DQ. (e.g. A well fed, alert child in the classroom of a teacher who had captured her imagination and is unfolding the magic of learning and stimulating thought and the access to information is in the service of DQ. --versus-- a young boy raped, bones broken, traumatized by the sight of his family killed in a Dafur village, as he bleeds to death at the feet of a government soldier.) ...obviously not an economic example, just graphically different. > > > mel: > > An 'intellectually guided economy', however, is another thing. > > Nothing is more democratic than the choice of where to spend > > money, time, and attention. It is the ULTIMATE democracy to > > the point of anarchism. > > > > The value of human life is rather clearly shown when an > > issue of People magazine or a tabloid journal is sold and > > a coin is deposited in a Darfur Relief box by the same store's > > cash register. We value the starving children, just not as > > much as Brittany (sp), or Brad-Angelina/Jennifer/the Royals/ > > Beckham/All Blacks/Bollywood...at the end of the day when the > > relief box and register sales are tallied. > > [chris] > Yeah. I just don't believe in any of this. For one thing, "the choice of > where to spend > money, time, and attention" is not your to make freely. It depends on when > and where you where born, who your parents are, how you speak, what your > sexual preferences are etc. It's hard to see a time when those difficulties > won't be around, but we should try to bring about true freedom: a society > where everybody has an equal chance. mel: The number of degrees-of-freedom under which we each operate is different, granted, but if you deny the freedom we DO have then all of this is pointless. Better to look at it this way. The way we seek to arrange freedom is to the goal we seek to accomlish in our own lives. This is analogous to the way an engineer arranges an explosive to deliver its energy in a precisely shaped way. examples: -The Olympic Athlete who performs breathtakingly has been wraped in the prison of routine training to the exclusion of almost everything outside, until they achieve the level of skill, competence, and ability they seek across biological, social, and intellectual levels in a balance. -The writer closes out the diversions of the world and unfolds, in the process of language, the ideas upon a structure of sentences, paragraphs, and chapters until the book is done and an intellectual pattern is set. -A jet-set celebrity simply disipates themselves without focus in a shallow life of plenty, leveraging money to pretend importance and significance in the social level, while satisfying the biological. All the same freedom, just differently arranged. thanks for the challenge... thanks--mel 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/
