From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Sun Jul 25 2004 - 19:55:23 BST
.and all MOQers:
Platt said:
Perhaps our debate is a reflection of this "fight," with you championing
the social patterns in the name of the public good and I holding out for
the freedom of the individual to succeed or fail on his own using such
intellectual powers as he is able to muster to make decisions for himself
and enjoy or suffer the consequences, whatever they may be.
mel:
This does seem to have become a discussion of politics implicitly.
pursuing social patterns in the name of the public good is almost
exactly a definition for PROGRESSIVE LIBERALISM (PL)
pursuing individual freedom and its concomitant results is a
good approximation of CLASSICAL LIBERALISM (CL)
The media and most people spoon-fed by the media mistakenly,
or ignorantly, refer to these positions as Liberal and Conservative.
CLASSICAL CONSERVATISM is all but abandoned in most
cases, with the exception of an occasional splinter that is held by
Libertarians, Rand's followers, and a few others...
(This is little more than the bitterness of two types of LIBERALISM)
PL's tend to mistrust the individual and desire to exert control for the
public good. (This is moral biologically and immoral intellectually
as viewed by the MoQ and traditionally no one in the PL camp has
a clear understanding of this, they simplify the argument to an
'equation': PUBLIC GOOD > Individual Freedom )
e.g.
Political correctness: stomping on freedom of thought/speech
is an example of this equation immorally run amok.
Dismantling a sweat-shop of near slavery coercive treatment of
captive foreign workers is an example of this equation as a moral act
CL's mistrust the Public Good as a largely fictitious creation of a
group of like minded individuals who have their own agenda. The
CL's believe that the individual understands best how to create a
moral life for himself within his web of relationships in society.
(This may become immoral as biologically over social or it may
be highly moral as intellectual over the social as viewed by MoQ.)
e.g.
Setting up a sweatshop would be an immoral action of this gone too far
Reinstating a student expelled from university for violating a
department
rule of Political Correctness would be a moral act.
In short, being committed to either side is an affirmation of SOM and
the very fact we are seeing this sort of argument tells us how far we
still need to go to escape SOM and appreciate MoQ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Paul replied:
...I think the personal or individual success (or failure) that you
"hold out for" also occurs at other levels, so cannot be a defining part
of the intellectual level. In my experience, the most dominant measure
of personal success is wealth - a social level phenomena. ..Anyway, in my
understanding of the MOQ, subordinating intellectual patterns to a primarily
social level goal of individual success is immoral.
mel:
Most people that I have encountered who truly believe wealth to be THE
significant measure of success for individuals have either:
A) Never made any real amount of money whatsoever ::or::
B) They are developmentally stunted individuals of low quality
ReA) Many 'old money' individuals have a certain disdain for money
as anything more than a tool with an accompanying responsibility.
As you must use a gun or a knife, or a chainsaw, or a dangerous
process responsibly, to avoid hurting people or causing harm, so to
must money be used responsibly.
This is one reason new rich are often looked down upon by old.
ReB) This is how we regard the class of greed driven Enron-oids,
and others who place their own self-interest above their duty to
act morally. (Possibly this is Maslowian prepotency and can be
outgrown with some individuals or simply a choice for others.)
More typically the use of SUCCESS is oriented towards more
specific examples of an Outcome compared to an Intent.
e.g. A successful. surgery, garden, construction project,
dramatic performance, recital, fruit crop, training.etc.
We seem to have an implicit association of:
MONEY = Social Artifact.
Money may be just as much an intellectual tool as a
social one. Remember, the intellectual level is still
dependent on the social and as such will make use of it.
The very creation of money was an act of intellectual
abstraction that allowed the VALUE of another's actions
or goods or services to be transportable. Originally this
was a very dynamic quality, but is comfortably static in
concept socially, but dynamic intellectually in use.
Non-commercial research is an example of a use of money
for intellectual...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
thanks--mel
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 25 2004 - 19:58:27 BST