OK Micah, Yes, "you" don't have any for me, but in the same way as you recognise your own limits, you would accept that my place in the cosmos means I have limits too, even if you don't put them there for me ?
My biological freedoms - to piss in the corner of my neighbours office when i get caught short - are limited by social (and no doubt) intellectual rules, mores, conventions, areguments, even legal instruments about why I shouldn't do it. Or The individuals in a mob may decide on a tacit vote they each want to rip me limb from limb, but there arguments - arguments that say they do not have that right - their freedom to do so may be limited by force. Not a great example, but you get the idea. And Is intellectual quality unlimited ? good question. Pragmatically if seems there may be unlimited "freedom of thought" - though that may simply be because the level above intellectual has not yet evolved. Once I "act" to physically express those thoughts, (however intellectual I believe they are), there are valid pragmatic limits to freedoms of speech and expression - usually contextual. Aside - For me this problem of who says what is intellectually valid, is the reason social and intellectual are so indistinct (Platt is the living embodiment of that problem), and this issue is so hard to disentangle from individual vs social (collective) issues. Ian On 5/15/07, Micah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian, > > I have my limits. I freely exercise them. I don't have any for you. > > How is biological quality limited by social quality? How is social quality > limited by intellectual quality. Is intellectual quality unlimited? > > Micah > > > > > Micah, do you not see "any" limits to freedoms, based on > responsibilities, (a al Mill for example) ? > > The MoQ levels themselves characterise some specific limitations - > social limits over biological, intellectual over social - the > individual (and the collective) participate in all of these. > > Ian > > On 5/15/07, Micah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Arlo, > > > > Your line "as much liberty for as many people as possible" is limited. > > "Liberty for all" is the correct phrase, if all life has value, unless it > is > > limited freedom. In which case, all life wouldn't have value. > > > > Micah > > > > > > > > [Arlo] > > Not so. It ends with respecting the value of human life and achieving as > > much > > liberty for as many people as possible. > > > > > > 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/ > > > 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/ > > 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/ > 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/
