Hi Andrea,
thanks for your comments. I'm in total agreement, so, not much to say. I also
think that Human Rights are a good set of static intellectual patterns, and
there's no reason to believe they can't be dynamically increased.
Ciao,
Marco
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrea Sosio" <andrea.sosio@italtel.it>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: MD Intellect over society?
> 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 Sosio
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.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
>
MOQ.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