[MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual

[David M]

Hi Chris

Sounds good to me, what is topping us
attain such a society do you think?

Here's someone who has been asking this question:

http://www.notbored.org/RTI.pdf

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christoffer Ivarsson" <IvarssonChristoffer at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual


>
>
> Ham and Ian. and everybody, this about Marxism and freedom and stuff
>
> [Ham]
>> ... and the most ludicrous of all:
> [Chris]
>>> abolishing the capitalist system so that social values such as
>>> profit isn't allowed to subjugate humanity's strive towards knowledge.
> [Ham]
>> For the life of me, I can't fathom how the rewards of research, 
>> production,
>> and marketing
>> in the capitalist system subjugate humanity's quest for knowledge.  Aside
>> from the fact that this is a disingenuous assertion, how would 
>> Marxism--even
>> ideally implemented--increase man's acquisition of knowledge??
>
> Just as Marx did, I am the first to recognize the great, great services 
> the capitalistic system has done for the development of mankind. However, 
> looking at it all as logically as possible - and from a MOQ perspective at 
> that - I can only conclude that the way we should develop is towards a a 
> state where the intellectual level (The Quest for knowledge) is not 
> directed by, and led in directions of what has high social value - I.e. 
> what one can make money of.
>
> The idea, the basic idea is to work towards this, to create a society 
> where the central aspect isn't that of acquiring social value (money) so 
> that one can gain biological, social and perhaps intellectual benefits 
> accordingly - no, in a communist society the social structures will have 
> been moulded into serving the intellectual level, and not the other way 
> around. No one will be a slave under the need to gain funds to survive, 
> because it will not be an adversarial based system. Instead everybody will 
> have the possibilities to expand their knowledge and understanding, in 
> whatever direction the intellectual level takes them - not that everybody 
> will of course, even if the Quest for Knowledge for Knowledge's sake Alone 
> is made to be the highest Social Value (Social values can be changed 
> remember?)  not everybody will choose to do so. But more will.
>
> So in short, a Marxist system is one where the intellectual level is 
> allowed to be in charge at all times. Now that's evolutionarily moral.
>
> ---
>
> [Ian] wrote:
> I'm catching-up / summarizing first. As MoQists we hold Individual
> (Freedoms) in some sense above Social / Collective / Cosmic (Duties /
> Responsibilities), and we hold Intellectual (PoV's) in some sense
> above Social (PoV's). But ... exactly how ...
>
> (This thread embodies the recurring difficulty with defining
> Intellectual as against Individual and defining Social/Collective
> against Individual, hence even the Social / Intellectual distinction
> still has some fuzziness. I have always preferred a view that treats
> the social and intellectual as one level - and acknowledges a spectrum
> of individual and collective patterns of value within it .... but
> that's just me .... avoiding conflict - I like fuzzy.)
>
> We all value "freedom" - the liberals by defintion, and for the
> conservatives it's a mantra to beat liberals with - and let the
> partizan rhetorical battles commence - but not here please. What we
> argue about is, that whilst intellectual patterns / individual freedom
> are "higher" than collective / social patterns, we cannot agree any
> valid limitations on freedoms by those collective aspects - markets or
> social duties, whatever. "Governance" is my word for this problematic
> issue - of limits to indivdual freedom - any or none.
>
>
> [Chris]
> Can we please stop putting a = sign between the intellectual level and 
> individual freedom. Freedom is a VERRY complicated word. Are we talking 
> about positive or negative freedoms? And really - Freedom the  way it is 
> used most of the time is a Social Level Weapon.
>
> And I'm not saying the social level is evil! We have been though that 
> discussion a hundred times already (notably with Platt) It's just that 
> since the intellectual level is too fuzzy, people tend to place social 
> values as intellectual - just because now, in our time, the moral code is 
> that freedom is a Good thing, that doesn't make freedom as such the 
> intellectual level, but only a concept that is now a social Value (perhaps 
> originated in the intellectual level, but that's beside the point).
>
> But, let me comment on your last paragraph here: The intellectual Level IS 
> limited by the social level. Today as always before. There must be a solid 
> social base on which the intellectual level can operate, but I simply say: 
> Let's make the social structures serve the intellectual level as much as 
> possible! Many of you talk about the dangers of limiting "personal 
> eedom"  - well, not considering that that is a very fuzzy concept,  it 
> still smells social level supremacy from afar. To best serve the supremacy 
> of the intellectual level, and thus the evolution and humanity in general, 
> we may have to take away "freedoms" such as the freedom to freely compete 
> on a capitalistic market. We may have to take away many things which many 
> today consider "freedoms"  - but these things will all be social values, 
> and at that values that is tied to the social value pattern called the 
> "free market".
>
> As long as people have the best opportunities to follow their innate 
> instinct of understanding things (The Intellectual Level) then morality is 
> served. Evolution is served.
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>