Mary said:
The question was, what does the Intellectual Level value, not what values have
made the Intellectual Level possible. What you and Andre point to below refers
to the latter and not the former.
dmb says:
If the answers didn't address your question then I probably don't understand
what you're asking.
Mary continued:
You seem to be saying the Intellectual Level's value set centers around human
rights. I happen to think the Int. Level depends on human rights, which is a
huge difference from what you are saying.
dmb says:
When I said, "HUMAN rights ...protect the freedom of the intellect itself.
They're all about giving the truth a chance to be known and heard and wrestled
with publicly. They're about restraining power from interfering with that
freedom," I was talking about the social-intellectual moral code. As you put
it, "freedom from religious dogma, for example, made objective scientific
inquiry possible". I think we agree on that much but then you come to a
conclusion that I don't get.
Mary said:
Ergo, the freedoms allowed the level. They are not the level.
dmb says:
I think that's like saying armies protect society, so they are not the society
itself. But I don't think anybody said the intellectual level was made of
nothing but human rights or that armies are the nation they defend.
Mary said:
Freedoms are beliefs, right? I believe we should all have freedom of speech,
inquiry, etc., and I am sure you do too. But, isn't the Intellectual Level
kind of antithetical to belief? Subject-object science is not supposed to be
swayed by beliefs. It's supposed to be above that sort of thing. Which is my
point.
dmb says:
According to scientific materialism (SOM), human rights are just a soup of
sentiments. The positivists would say they're scientifically meaningless. The
MOQ says they're intellectual values and they're for real.
Mary said:
Now here I tread into dangerous waters because I happen to think that modern
science is based on the "belief" that the world is composed of subjects and
objects, but that's the nut of our entire disagreement as I recall. Since you
do not believe that, you should be in the camp that says beliefs are of the
Social Level (religion, humanism, Democracy, etc.). These you (and I) see as
Social Level value patterns that are good, but they are not Intellectual value
patterns.
dmb says:
Huh? What I don't believe is that SOM and the intellectual level are the same
thing. I don't dispute the objectivity in modern science or the notion that
it's built on the assumptions of SOM, so I doubt that is part of the
disagreement.
Seems to me that a "belief" can be social or intellectual, the difference
depending on the point and purpose of the particular beliefs in question. It's
the SOM perspective that lumps them together as "subjective" or "just
subjective".
Mary said:
So, I ask again. What are the Intellectual Level value patterns? ...and am I
doing any better at making myself understood?
dmb says:
I think there are way too many pattens to name so I guess I don't understand
the question.
I don't think there is an essence or core governing value of the intellect. But
when you add the general idea of betterness to the social-intellectual moral
code (the rights that protect the intellect from social level interference),
you can see how the idea is just to open a space for intellectual freedom.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
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/md/archives.html
