John to Andre:
Intellectual ideas struggle to gain social success but intellectual
values do not compete with social values.
Andre:
The Law is into a popularity contest? It appears to me that the more you
try to explain your position the messier it gets John.
We want to dance all night, preferably with music as loud as possible.
There are intellectual values (the Law as an expression of the
intellectual values of Justice) which state that we can do so until 10
pm...a special permit may get us to 12 midnight. After transgression
there will be social sanctions (a fine, imprisonment, ban whatever).
Intellectual values are in direct competition for dominance over these
social values. Intellectual values struggle for control over these
social values. The Law IS an expression of intellectual values in
competition with social values.
Let me put it another way: when something is defined as 'lawful' there
immediately appears what is 'unlawful' (two sides of the same coin).
Intellectual values called 'justice' immediately conjure up the idea of
'injustice'. Now, can we say the values we hold signifying justice are
struggling with those values we hold signifying injustice? I prefer to
suggest that there is competition between lawfulness and lawlessness.
With justice and injustice. Freedom and un-freedom. Truth and populism.
There is an ongoing struggle for domination between the two. They are in
direct competition with each other. If you want to concoct something
else of this competition well...whatever John.
John:
Intellect should be concerned with truth, not celebrity.
Andre:
It is not concerned with celebrity John...that's what YOU make of this
competition/struggle.
John:
I believe the levels are like this - that it's "no competition" for a
society to beat up a single biological individual.
Andre
'Society' does not 'beat up a single biological individual' John. Your
bias shows again and again:to you society is made up of individuals. It
isn't John.
John:
And certainly there is no competition between the organic and the
inorganic levels! But there is a struggle to stay alive.
Andre:
It is a life or death competition John no matter what you make of it.
John:
I made the distinction for rhetorical, not logical reasons. You could
certainly say it, "An idea may struggle for popular acceptance but it
does not compete with popular acceptance." I mean how can you compete
with what you strive for? That would be absurd.
Andre:
As said above John: to see intellectual patterns of value as somehow
part of a popularity contest is absurd. Einstein's Theory of Relativity
(E=mc2) in a social popularity contest? As you argue above:
'intellectual values should be concerned with truth'. They are. They
certainly are NOT interested in, nor determined by social popularity
contests.
John:
A parent may struggle with his child but a parent that competes with his
child has got problems.
Andre:
Well John, not wanting to put too fine a point on it but one can also
see parent/child issues as the patterns of value a child holds are in
competition with the values the parent(s) hold. This can be cheeky
playfulness or it can be a head-on confrontation or anything in between.
Again you seem to be personalizing issues when we are supposed to be
talking about values.
John:
Right now the MoQ is in a position of opposition to SOM and SOM as a
metaphysics has a certain kind of society associated with it. Our
struggle isn't with social patterns per se, but bad social patterns that
flow from a bad metaphysics. We can't overcome existing social patterns
by mere intellectualizing.
Andre:
'As far as I know the MoQ does not trash the SOM. It contains the SOM
within a larger system. The only thing it trashes is the SOM assertion
that values are unreal'( Annotn. 135 ).
'...the MoQ only contradicts the SOM denial that value exists in the
real world. The MoQ says it does. Thus the MoQ ia an expansion of
existing knowledge, not a denial of existing knowledge' (Annotn 58).
I think a good place to start will be to stop personalizing values John.
John:
I think it's more fruitful to apply Value to our objects of discussion,
than making Value the object of discussion. And if you tell me I don't
understand the MoQ after *that*statement, I'll scream.
Andre:
As far as I am aware we do not 'apply Value to our objects of
discussion' nor do we make 'Value the object of discussion'. We are
_exchanging_ values John. And some of them clash, some compete, some
agree, some struggle, some compete etc etc.
Okay...SCREAM!
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
