Dear 3WDave,
I do know that you don't particularly appreciate Bo's definition of
Q-intellect.
Rather than reading rephrasings of your criticism of Bo's definition, I
would be interested to know if your own definition of Q-intellect has
evolved since what you wrote before:
11/2 8:11 -0600
'The intellectual level's duty, its moral obligation, what it "ought to do",
for itself and the whole is:
1. Use all of its capabilities (reason, logic, intuition, etc) to
continually identify patterns of value at all levels, uncover their
interrelationships, and develop laws that best explain them.
2. Direct the use of this information such that it encourages the levels
to evolve for the greater good all.
3. Primary of these 'greater goods' is freedom and those certain
individual inalienable rights that all have.
4. The nature of laws within a dynamic intellectual system is that to be
"good", they all must be considered provisional.'
20/2 8:04 -0600
'4th Principle: Some Qualities are better than Others'
Because of holidays I didn't get round to a reaction on your 3/8 9:50 -0500
post on where the jump to human consciousness occurs in the MoQ level
hierarchy. My conclusion from the paleopsychology quotes you provided in
that post was that this jump occurs between the social and intellectual
levels. Do you agree?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:22 BST