[MD] Neoconservatism

[Platt Holden]

Hey SA, 

Your explanation below of the conflict between the social and 
intellectual levels (collective vs. individual) is confusing to me. I 
interpret it to mean that society determines what intellectual thought 
patterns are acceptable. If society says the world is flat, then for 
all intents and purposes the world is flat. It seems to me just the 
opposite. What makes the intellectual level separate and distinct from 
the social level are the thought patterns that go against the 
prevailing cultural view. Wasn't that the point of the brujo story? 

Probably I have drawn the wrong conclusions from your explanation. But 
when you say, "The issues of values become better or worse (higher or 
lower) depending how well the intellect argues for one or the other" 
I'm left with the impression that one's values are decided by the best 
debating team. 

Platt

>      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