In my current state of terrific lag w.r.t. the discussions going on...
IMO, given that intellect is a higher level than society, this idea cannot be
reflected in full by *any* social organization. That is, if anyone is looking for a
social order that makes society subservient to intellect, that is a paradox. This
can be seen as a game of words, but I don't think it is. Saying that intellect is
above society, IMO, basically means that whatever social order you live in, you
should remember that society has its own moral code and that it is not *yours*. It
can be overlapping in good part with yours, but ultimately, to be a "full" human
being, you will have to use your own head rather than social conventions to take
your own moral decisions. And be ready, because it *may* happen, too, that your own
head puts you *against* the society you live in.
So the *direct* question of how should society be arranged to actually be
"subservient" to intellect has no answer. Nevertheless, there are *some* points that
can be inferred from the levels structure of the MOQ.
For example, each (modern) society has its own rules and among them, some are rules
about how rules can be changed. IMO, the latter are the door through which DQ can
flow into the social level from the intellectual level without destroying the social
level itself. Societies that did not exhibit this feature were eventually destroyed
when the intellect began pushing too hard and crushed the society's walls
(revolutions or other dramatic changes). On the other hand, one thing that the MOQ
definitely suggests is that a healthy society should have a well regulated and
effective way of supporting change. This includes providing a means for (good) ideas
of individuals to be publicized, so that they can be agreed upon and voted for.
That's a worthy goal and one that is not so easily achieved. "Democracy" is
definitely a good word to begin with, but ensuring that democracy is an *effective*
tool for introducing changes into the society is far from being an easy goal. And
given my overall attitude towards life, through my personal MOQ lenses, I see it as
a neverending task, too; I don't think it's like some specific recipe will do it.
It's also quite obvious that concepts such as "freedom of speech" and "freedom of
opinion" have to be defended at all costs; but IMO, they are also the very very very
very least. Much more is needed.
What "socialists" (or those that were deemed to be) usually pointed out in this
thread and previous "political" ones is that freedom of speech and of opinion are
too weak, per se, to provide for a society that isn't deaf and blind to the advices
of (smart) individuals that could make it advance. You can still have a genius
freely speaking very intelligent things in a desolate region of Alaska while an
idiot is selling low quality cosmetics on satellite TV.
-- Andrea SosioMOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:21 BST