Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

Date: Fri Oct 24 2003 - 09:48:23 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD Self-consciousness"

    Wim, Andy, and all Truth seekers.

    I'll start by "admonishing" Andy whose outburst against David
    Buchanan was most uncalled for and I hope DMB will return. He is
    not, but has the right to be a little "pompous" after his long job (a
    Sisyphus one against Rorty:) of keeping the standard of this
    discussion high and of keeping its focus on the MOQ! That he
    releases his posts in the weekends shows that he has a job to attend
    to and/or spend time writing them, something that should be heeded
    by us all. I like your posts too Andy, but think you owe DMB an

    On 23 Oct 2003 at 23:32, Wim Nusselder wrote: (to Andy who had

    > > You wrote 22 Oct 2003 16:10:10 +0000:
    > > 'All intellectual ideas are dangerous to social values and patterns.
    > > But some more dangerous than others'

    > I'd like to maintain that FROM A SOCIAL LEVEL POINT OF VIEW all
    > intellectual patterns of value are equally dangerous (for social
    > patterns of value). This danger is implied in the their ability to
    > motivate people to break habitual behaviour, not in their content.

    I am waiting for the MF to open (Horse says it's soon to happen) so I
    had moved over to the that side of my desk ;-), but your input in the
    "dangerous" thread was at least an effort to forward the MOQ view!
    ...and had to say so.

    The difficulty in bringing it to bear stems from the "dangerous idea"
    that whatever comes to mind is "intellectual" ...or that all ideas are
    intellectual patterns. I had hoped that you would point to that fallacy,
    but just saying that there is a "social point of view" shows it.

    > It
    > is only from an intellectual point of view, or rather from the point
    > of view of a specific intellectual pattern of value that motivates
    > people to support a specific social pattern of value, that we can say
    > that some intellectual patterns of value are more dangerous (to that
    > specific 'conservative' intellectual pattern of value) than others.
    > (In some sense every intellectual pattern of value is to some extent
    > 'conservative' in that it wants to support one or more social patterns
    > of value, even if only the social pattern of parroting a cry for more
    > 'individual freedom'.) Only patterns of value of the same level can be
    > dangerous to each other in a gradable sense. They are too discrete
    > from patterns of value of other levels to distinguish them in 'more or
    > less dangerous' to these other patterns of value.

    To the degree I'm able to follow your meanderings I hope you are
    saying that intellectual values (f.ex. free press, - speech, democracy,
    trial by jury ..etc.) are intellectual even if supported by the social
    pattern of (submitting to) majority, while one lone person hating these
    ideas is maintaining social values.

    > > 'Platt and I might disagree about which social values should be
    > > preserved and which intellectual ideas might replace them.'

    For Andy: Hopefully you mean "...which social patterns ..etc". Social
    value as such neither can nor should be replaced.

    > Yes, you participate in different intellectual patterns of value
    > (motivating support for different social patterns of value). No,
    > intellectual patterns of value cannot replace social patterns of value
    > (a set of symbols cannot replace a set of behaviours).

    Wim, here I beg to differ. "Behavior" (as such) Q-social value? Even
    an earthworm displays behavior - biological behavior, while a human
    being displays all kinds of behavior. Also that of intellect as "sets of
    symbols" I oppose: Intellectual "behavior" is that of seeking for the
    OBJECTIVE truth, disregarding mere SUBJECTIVE (social)

    The "objective vs subjective" is something different from mere knowing
    right from wrong. Ancient (social-age) people naturally knew this
    difference, but the the sceptic who asked for scientific proof ...for "a
    natural explanation" was born with intellect.

    Enough for now

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 24 2003 - 09:51:33 BST