Hi all Dan: A chat room is a social endeavor. There is nothing wrong with a chat room but to mistake this forum for a chat room is to lack a caring attitude toward intellectual integrity. If social intercourse is what you seek, this is probably not the place for you.
Intresting!.......I might have misconceived here someting, How can you make a sharp distinction between social values and intellectual values on a forum like this? If everybody is communicating from their own intellectual integrity and dispite that inlellectual differences can emerge on a certain point of view. For example, someone can mistake intellectual integrity for intellectual dogma. I would consider the intellectual dogma as a social value. I can imagine that on a forum like this there is a constant tension between the social level of dogma's and new intellectual dynamic. example: The censorship of Dr Rupert Sheldrake by TED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zamrs3nE9ys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA I think in this way there can also arise conflicts between loyalty(social value) and integrity( basic to intellectual values) without members even being aware this is happening. Dan: Or excellent thinking all the way up. Is it better to be a sloppy thinker or a clear thinker? If someone sees the coherence of this forum in defending the work of RMP as a high value, he would be motivated to descard new creative intellectual ideas and value them as sloppy at forhand although the work of RMP sees new creative intellectual ideas as a higher value. >From Richard Dawkins point of view is cultural evolution is an analogy of natural evolution. From his point of view the intellectual memes who are likely to survive are the ones who adapt in the best way. which from my point of view according to this forum is a social value. How does MOQ see this? Dan: I don't know. I'm pretty much apolitical. I would say sloppy thinking will tend to lead to failure more than it will lead to success but I suppose that depends upon one's definition of success. Are you seriously suggesting sloppy thinking is better than clear and concise thinking? That is how I am reading your reaction here. Just playing, see how you react :D Dan: Probably about as rational as you can about the value stupid. Not very, in other words. So why would anyone value sloppy and stupid above clear and concise and intelligent? Is there even a choice involved? Well.....as you see in my above arguments, what is clear thinking to the one can be considered sloppy to the other. depends on the thinking and on te thinker. To determen that, in a forum like this, to improve coherence, envolves thinking done by different thinkers. What is a good MOQ guideline to distinguish between intellectual values and social values as colliding personal intrests from the individual tinkers. How can you be sure that the best intellectual idea is being accepted and also improving the coherence of the forum? Kind regards, Eddo 2013/8/1 Dan Glover <[email protected]> > Hello everyone > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Eddo Rats <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi everyone > > > > Dan: > > None of us are isolated islands. > > > > Eddo: > > I agree, but from my point of view imho we are interacting islands who > > individualy have an intrest in staying with their surface above the > water. > > > > In a social endavour like this forum the interaction between all the > > separate islands with all the possible changes in their dynamic surfaces > is > > far more complex and is more likely to become chaotic compared to the > > experienced mechanic with a rigourous static scientific body of knowledge > > in his relationship with the motorcycle. > > > > Dan: > A chat room is a social endeavor. There is nothing wrong with a chat room > but to mistake this forum for a chat room is to lack a caring attitude > toward intellectual integrity. If social intercourse is what you seek, this > is probably not the place for you. > > > > > > Dan: > > We create common sense while working on a motorcycle in the same way we > > create common sense when working at philosophy or laboring at our jobs or > > being with our loved ones. If we take care in attending to the moment, we > > become artists at whatever we do. > > > > If we are sloppy in our thinking, it tends to boil over into all other > > aspects of our life. The wife/husband decides s/he's had enough... the > boss > > might need to have a talk with us... that oil leak we keep trying to fix > on > > our motorcycle keeps on dripping... the posts we contribute here are full > > of errors, lacking in intellectual integrity, and often contradictory. > > > > This is why it is good to remember that in the MOQ ideas come before > > matter. Take care of your ideas and the rest will follow. > > > > Eddo: > > Hmm......so it is sloppy thinking all the way down. > > > Dan: > Or excellent thinking all the way up. Is it better to be a sloppy thinker > or a clear thinker? > > Eddo: > > > So if you are > > unsuccessfull you are a sloppy thinker. where did i here this before? > Isn't > > this a typical slogan on the banner of a (Dutch)liberal = (American) > > Republican = (UK) conservative politician who claims SUCCES IS A > CHOICE!!!! > > > > Dan: > I don't know. I'm pretty much apolitical. I would say sloppy thinking will > tend to lead to failure more than it will lead to success but I suppose > that depends upon one's definition of success. > > Are you seriously suggesting sloppy thinking is better than clear and > concise thinking? That is how I am reading your reaction here. > > > > Eddo: > > Isn't there a limit to the best possible thinking? > > > Dan: > Is there a limit to better thinking? I don't think so. :-) > > Eddo: > > > I can for example think > > of the landow limit which says something about the maximum information > > possible to be stored in reaction to maxwell's demon who thought of a > > cunning plan to reverse entropy. > > > > Dan: > I know I've heard something along these lines but this is not my forte. > > > > Eddo: > > How rational can you be about the value sloppy? > > > > Dan: > Probably about as rational as you can about the value stupid. Not very, in > other words. So why would anyone value sloppy and stupid above clear and > concise and intelligent? Is there even a choice involved? > > Thank you, > > Dan > > http://www.danglover.com > 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
