Hi dmb, Did I make you spill your coffee? Sorry. Look at it this way. Somebody had to engage in some freedom of thought to come up with gods, and kings, and then different gods, and then one god in the first place did they not? I figure the first religion somebody thought up probably didn't appreciate the idea too much for the second one. Just because the thoughts they came up with were designed to suppress the thoughts of others doesn't make those thoughts any less original - any less "free". They were freely thought up suppressive thoughts.
When somebody said, "You know what? There aren't really a bunch of gods, there's just one guy and his name is Yahweh." That was a freely constructed thought. Nothing coerced, nothing suppressed. It was that same guy's next thought that was trouble. "My god Yahweh is better than your bunch of gods, and only he knows the truth, and he will reveal it to you when he feels like it." That thought was a stinker, but was also a freely thunk thought. I take it you are willing to say that the difference between the values of the Social and Intellectual is freedom of thought? Thought about what, exactly? Does it matter? What if I think up another, new, oppressive religion? Is that an Intellectual Level thought? It's a free thought. Or are only certain kinds of thoughts Intellectual? What kind of thoughts would those be? If you are willing to concede that the Social Level has some measure of freedom of thought, then if you say that the Intellectual Level is freedom of thought, then you have to mean that it's freedom of thought of a particular kind. What kinds? Mary > > Okay, one more post. > > > Mary said: > We have always had intellectual freedom. It was intellectual freedom > that came up with gods, and kings, and then different gods, and then > one god, reading and writing, poetry, art, music, legal systems, > politics, money, trade, etc. All these changing ideas happened and > continue to change to this day in the Social Level. The Social level > is not deadly static and fixed in stone. > > > dmb says: > > Whoa! I think you've glossed over the difference between social and > intellectual values that makes things hopelessly muddy. And who said > the social level was deadly static and fixed in stone? > > We've always had intellectual freedom? Are you kidding? Until very > recent times, saying the wrong thing would get you killed. The > Inquisition springs to mind. The Scopes Monkey trial, McCarthyism are > also very famous examples of social level restrictions on intellectual > freedom. Sorry, but I think that's just about the wrongest thing I've > heard all day. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from > your inbox. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL > :ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 > 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 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
