[MD] Neoconservatism

[Heather Perella]

Hey Platt,


> [Gene]
> > For me, the Intellectual level is a personal one,
> each individual has
> > their own Static Intellectual Quality stored
> inside their head. Anything
> > to do with a collective is, for me, a Social
> level, although it
> > influences the Intellectual and is influenced by
> it.
> 
     Platt said:  "I agree. I prefer to call the
Intellectual level the
> Individual level 
> for the reason you cite. It also follows that the
> Social level might 
> better be called the Collective level. Politically,
> the left tends to 
> think in terms of the Collective welfare state
> level, the right in 
> terms of the Individual private property level.
> There's little doubt 
> about which is the higher on the evolutionary
> ladder."

     Platt, though I tend not to think into politics
and be as involved in the issues as some on the
MOQ.org your use of Collective welfare state and
individual private property level doesn't make a lot
of sense.  I know in the past Ham and you have said
that the levels are always in conflict with each other
and this conflictive approach leads you into this
intellectual trumping societal level conclusion.
     The intellectual level and societal level are
independent.  They influence each other, but retain a
level unto themselves that gives the patterns of value
their unique static quality which has them placed into
their specific level.  Therefore intellectual values
would not exist without social level values.  Chaos to
social are foundations for intellectual.
     What the values need or want to be, by either
social pressures or intellectual pressures, that's the
question up for debate.  Yet, to conclude that
individual property rights are intellectual, thus,
trumping collective welfare is to miss the debate as
to where values/issues are staticly identified as,
meaning in what level they belong.  If society has
already valued or does value something more reasonable
than any other individual need, even if that value up
for debate is intellectual, the society debates which
of values is more intellectual or reasonable and thus,
to be of use.  
     If society finds reasonable 'collective welfare'
and 'individual property rights', whichever degree of
frequency these two issues may occur, then that's the
way it is, static quality, unless something new comes
along, and we are introduced to dynamic quality. 
Whatever way society debates these issues, that is
society arguing it out and finding the better way. 
The individual has an intellect, but society uses past
or current intellectual minds for their reasoning. 
Thus, the issues you raised are not higher or lower
because of the quantity of people thinking or using
the issues.  The issues or values become better or
worse (higher or lower) depending on how well the
intellect argues for one or the other.  
     Any implementation in society is a societal value
in which society deems representable and valuable. 
Will there be still debates and arguments,
intellectually dispensing values into society?  Sure,
and conclusions by society amidst debates might be
results of the majorities will or at times maybe even
the minorities will.  Implementations may occur while
some or many still argue against it, but this is where
it becomes societies moral order to listen to the best
intellectually arguable valued pattern.  That's where
the debate can exist - between the values.  This is
another way I see Gene's 'interaction' to be
understood.  Argumentation is a interaction.


SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com