On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:50 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > [John] > > > > > there's no written language and thus no intellect > > Nope, because… > > > > [John] > > …much of the American charter came from ideas gleaned from the way > > Algonquin Indians governed themselves? > > > > …because the Algonquin Indians had no written language until 1663 when it > was provided for them by whites. So the Algonquin Indians had > ideas/intellect BEFORE they had a written language. >
John] Craig, I actually lean toward pre-linguistic intellect. I might try and see it as arising from written language, just cuz I follow Platt's lead slavishly, but my inclination is that all language arises from intellectual patterns rather than the other way around. > > > [John] > > Does an idea having relatively low > quality differ radically from an > idea containing negative quality? > Craig] > IMHO no. John] Well what about the difference between an idea that just doesn't help very much, vs. an idea that actually is destructive? Is what I was getting at. [John] > > 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? > Craig] IMHO the latter. John] Something rattlin' around my brain is the possible distinction between what is good and what is best - with best being narrowly defined as "best for me" and good being "best in the overall sense". Craig] > If “self-denial” means denying flourishing as an individual, then not > good. If “self-denial” means prudently postponing instant gratification, > then good. > John] In a shipwreck, there's a rule "women and children first". If I follow that rule it shows self denial wherein I certainly don't flourish as an individual. So do you stick to "not good" when you consider that example? Craig] > But Adam Smith argues that society prospers more by each > pursuing their self-interest (“invisible hand’). > John] But the thought experiment "tragedy of the commons" refutes Adam Smith. In a closed ecosystem, individuals pursuing self-interest at the expense of the commons destroy their own context. Considering the current collapse of economic system, I'd say empirical evidence is against Smith . Craig] > But is it more moral for a bad idea to kill a good society than it is for a > good society to kill > a bad idea? > Craig > > > John] That is a interesting question. I'm having a hard time coming up with a concrete example to help me understand how a bad idea could kill a good society. Part of my definition of "good society" is one that is immune to bad ideas. And it is always the ongoing task of good society to kill bad ideas. > 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/
