Re: MD Analysis of Q-intellect

From: Marco (
Date: Sun Sep 29 2002 - 16:50:32 BST

Hi Wim,

( a ps also for Mr.. Degallo :-) )

sorry for the delay, hope you don't mind. I'm glad we are once again on a
similar position.

In my message I used the term "serve" to mean a plain servitude. I agree
that an idea can be useful both to the intellectual and the social level.
I'd even say that it is the best thing an idea can do (alas, often social
patterns don't allow that least freedom to make it possible for ideas to
thrive). IMO the idea that is not in some way "socially good" or, even
worse, that is baldly "anti-social", it simply undermines its own base.

In short, I think that an high-quality intellectual pattern don't "serve"
society: it follows its own need of knowledge, while cooperating with its
underlying social level, especially because the good of the lower level is
good also for the higher itself.


The "society making progress" thread has been probably the best thread on
this forum in three years.
It was clear from the beginning that PACO and ROG are the same person. By
the way, Paco is his dog, if I remember well. Just I don't know who is

3WDave apparently abandoned, and I'm a little sad for that. Indeed, I see
that the MOQ discussion is everyday becoming less relevant to this forum.
There are still good exceptions, as the DMB recent post who tried to put the
never ending political debate onto a MOQish track. I'm longing for the old
days of the focused MF discussions. Fortunately I'm going to observe a
strict lurking period due to job overload and other tasks.

See you all


Mail Archive -
MD Queries -

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:36 BST