Well I like the way you break things down here Craig into bite sized pieces. Helps with the chewing. I'll just dive right in and see if you can swallow my answers.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:40 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I see at least 4 complications: > 1) how to identify intellectual values > 2) how to distinguish high- from low- quality intellectual values > 3) how to determine whether an intellectual value can be forced > upon others or whether others can be forced to support it > 4) what to do if the choice is between a low-quality intellectual value > & a high-quality social value > 1) Intellectual values - The Value of intellect is Truth. It is easiest to identify when perceived truth is in conflict with socially enforced truth, then you see the conflict plain and simple. Galileo muttering "But it moves". The main indicator of the intellectual level is the pointer "meta" - thinking about "thinking about". You could call it the Quality of "meta" in your metaphysics of Quality. 2) For the "How" we have differing methods, philosophies, logical rules. The MoQ stands apart from the process of analyzing truth and asks "how do we know which method works best?" And there is no one way to answer this. What is Good stands as an Absolute Ideal on its own merits and gives us the context to select methodologys. Pragmatism seemingly the current favorite of the forum. 3) "Forcing upon others" immediately puts us in the realm of social maneuvering - with differing rules of "morality" than the intellectual. Main point, is keep it straight which level you're operating upon. 4) Is "low-quality" the same as "bad"? Does an idea having relatively low quality differ radically from an idea containing negative quality? This question would be helped by concrete examples. Hmmm... Ok, here's another problem in distinction, does a high quality social value mean one that gets ME rich and famous, or does it mean one that makes a society grow and prosper? And I think that is a clue here. There is an ego driven selfishness that comes into play on questions of morality. Self denial is something "everybody knows" is good. It's a value which puts others before me. A high quality social value, then, for it puts the needs of the society above the needs of the individual. Randian Objectivism seems to miss this point. If the individual is intellectually correct, and then swallows his truth in order to get along, (save his own skin) then it makes sense to label this immoral. But if the truth would harm or destroy a perfectly good social system for trivial reasons.... it's still immoral. It's more moral for an idea to kill a society than it is for a society to kill an idea. "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Ok. I'm gonna try and digest now. John > > 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/ > -- ------------ There are differing interpretations of Reality, some are just better than others, that's all. ------------ 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/
