[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[David M]

Hi DMB

> dmb says:
> This question isn't really about the difference between social and
> intellectual values. It introduces the distinction between collective
> structures and individual persons as if that determined which level of
> values was in play. Not so. Democratic societies are guided by 
> intellectual
> values. Its quite alright that democracy is a form of government, a social
> institution run by flesh and blood people. That doesn't mean democracy is 
> a
> social level value.

DM: OK but what were the values that were at work in society prior
to democracy? I see pre-democratic societies in terms of collective
patterns to create the society, eg customs and religion, but also their
lack of democracy, i.e. rule by elites. Of course intellect largely emerges
from these elites.

Human Rights are protected by laws and courts and such,
> that doesn't prevent them from functioning to protect intellectual
> principles.

DM: Nothing I disagree with but how what really cuts the distinctions
here?

Conversely, I'm sure there are millions of individuals who
> would, in confessing their beliefs and values, reveal themselves to be
> social level individuals - even if they live alone and have no friends.

D: Interesting suggestion but can you describe their social and
non-intellectual values?

 The  point is simply that bodies and social institutions are always going 
to be
> involved where ever there are humans. The distinction between third and
> fourth level values is going to be discerned by the intellect. They not 
> only
> perform totally different functions because of the evolutionary 
> relationship
> they bear with their differing parents, but they have a different feel, a
> different quality. Or so it seems to me.

DM: Yes, but how can we explain this feel and describe it? I think some
aspect of the individual's struggle against society is tied to this.


> dmb says:
> Well, I'd agree that a society that protects freedom of speech is superior
> to one that doesn't, if that's what you're trying to say. But a society 
> that
> only embraces the kind of speech that benefits society is not the same 
> thing
> at all. I mean, if freedom of speech isn't about the freedom to speak
> against the government or in opposition to any of the culture's values, 
> then
> it's meaningless. And I suppose that any tradition that can be toppled 
> with
> mere words probably deserves to be ruined.

DM: But this is to portray what is intellectual as in opposition with
society, true for now, but we could not see this as definitional if
intellectual values dominated society? So what you say does not help
here with defining the difference.

> But the over-arching problem, I mean the reason you seem to have trouble
> with the social-intellectual distinction, is that you've confused it with
> the collective-individual distinction.

DM: Well I think what we mean by intellectual is bound up with the
emergence of individualism in modern western culture. If you ever
get the chance check out Charles Taylor's 'Sources of the Self'
its a great history of modern values and in many people's top ten
recent philosophy books, try name dropping it at school to gauge
opinion. Thanks for the above suggestions, not bad but we are not
entirely nailing it down I feel.