Hi Roger,
> If you run out of time, feel free to respond on the other forum.
Here I am! I just took a couple of days to reflect and cool the discussion
down. I can't participate a lot this month, so by this post I try to
highlight the differences between us, in order to reach at least an
agreement on our
disagreement.
> The problem is that you (as many Americans) are living a sort of
> intoxication for all the goods you gained. Maybe from my
> European-but-quasi-African point of view I see many things in a
> diverse way.
>
> ROGER:
> No, the problem is that you (as many Italians).....nah, lets not
> go there....
>
Touche! I apologize for my words... however about the intoxication let me
say that I really believe that the richness gained by the whole western
people make it difficult for many to really understand how huge are some
injustices.
----------------
However... Let's begin. We agree on some premises:
1st:
> MARCO:
> Oh no! I have a great faith in DQ. Of course new economic genres will
> surface. But when? Do you think we just have to stand still and wait? For
> what I know, human beings can be very good vehicles for the DQ=>SQ
> process. Isn't it a sort of mission?
>
> ROGER:
> Agreed. This is the process.
>
2nd:
> M:
> The process of advance towards complexity you mention is not linear in
> times, it proceeds up and down.
>
> R:
> Agreed
>
3rd:
> M:
> You see, when the Roman empire was the only developed nation
> in Europe, with no economic competitor, it died. They were
> at the same point of the England of the XV century, but why
> the Romans did not create the industrial revolution?
>
> It's a mystery only if you don't use a moq view. They did not need it: no
> competitor, low necessity of dynamism. (By the way, this is the same
> principle that is at the base of the "anti trust" laws).
>
> R:
> Agreed, strongly! The fractured nature of nation-city states in
> Europe led to a competitive cooperative laboratory of new ideas,
> successes and failures.
> These were suppressed in Rome and China and even
> Japan for various reasons.
> See the Jared Diamond article in EDGE
>
> http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond_rich/rich_p1.html
I'll take a look. Thanks.
> Agree 100% on the nature of anti-trust too.
>
So in few words we agree about the value of competition as input for
dynamic evolution. My position about it is that in the past social
competitions (wars for richness, mainly) conditioned the creation of more
and more developed intellectual patterns in order to reach a more
competitive social strength. So we had, for example, the development of war
technologies (from catapults to A-bombs); and also the development of social
systems (from tribes to nations) which have been clearly more and more
effective in order to assure safeness and long life to a social structure.
In this process IMO intellect has been the leading actor, while society was
the director. I can't say exactly if q-society had created or discovered
intellect among human possibilities; but I'm pretty sure that intellect is
what it is today mainly thanks to the q-social need to develop it.
As the societies became more an more complex, and competition became
more and more hard, they had the need of an highly developed intellect. To
the point in which the currently winning social pattern, western democracy,
had to grant to intellect a wide freedom; so wide that intellect has been
able to reach a self determination. The intellectual level was not born when
intellect arose, but when finally intellect had the chance to be both
director and actor on the scene.
I well know this is a simplification. It must be enlarged with the value of
cooperation, of inner competitiveness, of inter-level win/win balances (as
you rightly suggest), however I think it can be a good scheme to explain the
how and why of the evolutionary process from social to intellectual, at
least up to the moment in which the intellectual level has been established.
Maybe here we still are in a certain agreement.
------------------
> M:
> All the advancements you mention in your post were granted during a strong
> competition against developed totalitarianisms. But today there are no
> competitors left. Can you exclude the advent of a new Middle Age?
>
> R:
> Actually, I think the totalitarian regimes were NO COMPETITION. They
> solidified themselves behind their own Great Walls/Iron Curtains.
> I believe the competition has been getting immensely tougher.
>
Here is the real first disagreement, but I think it's not grave. IMO the
World War II against fascists and nazis has been a very strong social
competition. It has not been a fortuity that USA and Soviet Union were on
the same side: that war was declared by all the social driven societies
(Germany, Japan and Italy) against all the intellect driven societies
(Democracies and Socialisms). The "Manhattan Project" represents maybe the
acme of the utilization of intellect for a social purpose. The output of
that project has been the A-bomb, as you know. But the input was the fact
that many of those intellects preferred to help a democratic system against
a totalitarian system, due to the simple fact that a democracy like the USA
was assuring
to those intellects a wider freedom. So, after the war, those intellects
remained in the USA and developed a lot of technologic enhancements: rockets
to the moon, nuclear energy.
Then we had the "Cold War". Another social competition, but this time
between two intellect driven societies. On one side, democracies, based
upon the principle of freedom and human rights, on the other side communism,
a totalitarianism based upon the concept of a blind equality. Well, I can
assure you it has been a great social competition, even if
not by the use of arms. As I wrote in one post last month:
" After the second world war, the presence of communism just behind the
frontier has been a constant input for many European nations to create a
system in which many rights were granted: the welfare state has been the
western answer to many socialist instances, especially in those countries
just on the eastern frontier, or with a strong socialist party inside".
For example, in Italy we had a communist party which arrived (in the 70s) to
have the 40% of the votes. Nothing like the Russian communists, but surely
very critic against the capitalistic western view. Well, let me say that it
has been thanks to this presence that we had so many social advancements
like the bill of the rights of the workers, the welfare state, the laical
public school. It has been a great inner competition, and it was the
reflection of the greater West vs. East competition.
Actually the source of our disagreement seems to be the fact that you give
the main importance to inner competitiveness, while I'm more considering the
competition between different systems.
Well, they are both important: as in the example of the Roman Empire, the
outer competition is necessary for a system to survive; and in the example
of Soviet Union, the lack of an inner competition is equally mortal during
an outer competition. Let me know if we are still in disagreement.
------------------------------
> M:
> I simply would like to see a fast development of their
> economic situation, with more respect for their culture,
> their environment, their past.
>
> R:
> The fastest cultural transmissions have tended to come from conquering
> others. Certainly this isn't what you recommend. I guarantee you
> I do not recommend it Longer term the process will work by memetic
> transfer. Good ideas from both cultures can spread freely. But it must
be voluntary.
> Forcing it will just backfire, as it will not respect their environment or
> past.
>
Here we agree. Of course we don't recommend any conquest. However I'd like
to clarify that the examples you brought:
> ROGER:
> Virtually every country which has adopted the modern social
> model has seen an explosive advance in biological and social
> advancement. Post WWII Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc, etc. And all
> this in the span of a little over one generation! Not bad, when
> you consider the few hundred thousand years we spent as hunter
> gatherers and the ten thousand years or so as herders and farmers.
are not exactly examples of "free choice" of the western system. Japan has
been defeated by the said A-bomb, in (South) Korea the USA had to fight
another war, and when Taiwan chose the western system, it has not been a
free democratic choice. Taiwan was a nationalist state founded to escape
from the rule of Mao. And the only possible alternative was to follow the
USA. A decision taken by few leaders.
And also in western Europe the choice has not been really free. The Yalta
conference has been an intellectual decision to divide the world in two. No
free choice of nations to be on one side. The "Marshall plan" which helped
decisively west Europe (especially Italy and West Germany) to restore a good
economic situation, was driven by the need to prevent in those nations any
desire of a communist adventure.
So I agree that many countries which had the luck to be on the right side
had huge social benefits, as the system revealed to be better; but the
expansion of the democratic system has not been socially spontaneous, or
market driven. It has been a precise intellectual decision in order to win
the competition against communism.
And, putting aside all these arguments, there a simple question: what about
Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, India, Philippines? Aren't those countries
under the western economic rule? Why Philippines is not rich like Japan? Why
Mexico is not rich like Spain? In Latin America there's the paradox of one
of the last socialist and totalitarian nations (Cuba) that is not more poor
than many other countries of the area in which the free trade is granted.
And this in spite of the embargo declared by the USA. I'm not here
supporting Castro, I'm just trying to show that the free market, without an
intellectual input like the Marshall plan has been for Europe, is not enough
in order to assure the development of a fair democracy.
>
> M:
> Please, reread my words above: "The free market is the
> evil when it deals with arts, human rights, education,
> philosophy, religion, science...."
>
> R:
> Odd, considering free market societies have been where all of these have
> flourished. Yes, flourished!!!
Well, I gave you the example of Brazil, India, South Africa and so on....
what about the human rights granted by Pinochet in Chile? Or by South
Africa to black people? Why the level of education is higher in Cuba than in
Mexico? And didn't the Soviet Union reach big technological advancements?
(ever heard of Yuri Gagarin?).
> Please let me know which social pattern has
> done better -- all things considered.
No, I've not examples of social patterns doing better. But IMO the success
of the free market is another farce. As said, Western Europe and Japan
represent the product of a precise intellectual and political decision. This
free market as a sort of free navigator that enriches all the ports where it
disembarks is a tale for children. Free market is the ultimate social
solution found by intellect in order to create a system able to dynamically
survive the outer competitions.
> I am not saying any system is perfect,
and here we agree....
> but do you know a better system? If not, do you think a better system is
> likely to emerge from socialism, totalitarianarism, communism,
> libertarianism, chiefdoms, Sacred Rulers....or out of good ol' fashioned
> democratic/free enterprise pluralities?
I'm sure that our system is the best. But, as said, my fear is about the
lack of outer competitors.
> Face it, the most dynamic platform won.
And now that the game is over? Your point that new systems will spread out
from the winner is good. I thank you for it. Actually I'm not searching for
a revolution against democracy (I hope it's clear), I'm searching for an
advancement.
You have a great faith in the inner competitions you mention:
> R:
> Democrats vs Republicans
> Congress vs the Judiciary
> Liberals vs Democrats
> Europe vs Japan
> Coke vs Pepsi
> Unions vs Corporations
> Environmentalists vs Developers
> Marco vs Roger
>
> I believe in the dialectic. Plurality. I support the process, not
> one side or the other.
I can agree, all these inner competitions are important. As I don't see any:
Market vs .... ? probably you mean that as Market has definitely won,
there's no need of a competitor. Market is the most dynamic social
platform.
I completely agree. In the past I suggested the economic system as the
"environment" of the social level. But It would be perfect if only the whole
world had accepted the system. Too many countries are out from the system,
not for their choice, and there's no one really caring for the best way to
make them enter.
Or do you believe that the system is spontaneously expanding to the whole
world? Is it right to wait centuries for the miracle of a memetic transfer
from USA to Angola? Or what about a new "Marshall plan" for the "South of
the world"? Without it, we will go on watching masses of desperate people
passing the Texas frontier or traveling across the Mediterranean sea (often
with cocaine in the backpack to pay the journey).
----------------
And now let's come to a very metaphysical discussion... here there are other
disagreements.
> >ROGER:
> >We don't need a better intellectual solution to
> >society, we need good society upon which to establish
> >intellectual advance.
>
> M:
> Isn't the "need of a good society... " exactly the need of "better
> intellectual solution to society?". Q-society, as every level, has
> two main purposes: the first, directed below, is to solve biologic
> needs. The second, directed above, is to evolve up to be able
> to create a new level.
>
> R:
> Absolutely not. Biology doesn't have some kind of PURPOSE
> TO CREATE SOCIETY.
That means we agree at least on the first "purpose". Maybe the term
"purpose" is not the best to indicate the second one? What about "mission",
or "cause", or... ? I'm saying that ok, no biologic being one day decided to
develop a society. It encountered DQ, and it saw it was good.
> You've got it backward. Higher levels emerge out of the
> lower as the lower attends to better solutions
> (which are invariably of the win/win variety ie
> molecules cooperating with others molecules to
> form a chemical feedback loop
> called life, life cooperating to form society etc.)
> The higher level emerges
> out of the values of the lower and only later develops values of its own.
>
we agree here, I guess (confront my initial lines about the Manhattan
Project). IMO there has been a misunderstanding about "Purpose".
> M:
> The "good society" I'm longing must be enforced on this second point.
>
> R:
> You scare me some times.....
>
Quiet! I'm just trying to imagine an intellectual driven society in which
the emergence and development of intellect is possibly immune by social
forces.... In which the expansion of material (social) richness is driven by
a precise intellectual purpose to give to all the population the possibility
to develop their diverse cultures, and finally choose, not driven by their
hunger, rather by their experience.
I'm suggesting new "Marshall plans", not Gulags! But the original Marshall
plan was determined in a competitive East/West situation. Today, in lack of
outer social competition, we are worried for one point of inflation, while
the expansion of the system is left to the "market laws", as I tried to show
with the example of the "Pakistan Ball....".
-----------------
> M:
> My words
> sound so schizoid to those that can't well distinguish social and
> intellectual values.
>
> R:
> Prescient words. See below.
Again I apologize. Please, let me change my sentence: "My words sound so
schizoid to you as we have different views about the social/intellectual
distinction".
> >Roger
> > Intellectual advance is
> > science, math, knowledge, technology etc.
>
> M:
> And human rights? And Arts?
>
> R:
> Human rights are social values.. As for the Arts, I do not
> agree that these are intellectual values either. But if you
> insist that both of these are intellectual, then please show
> me your recommended social competitor to free
> enterprise/democracy and let me know its track record on these two. I'm
> serious Marco. Maybe you should vote for Horse's suggestion.
(I did....) About my "recommended social competitor to free
enterprise/democracy" I hope I answered. I try now to tell you why I
consider art and human rights as intellectual values. Please, don't take it
as a lesson. I'm just trying to express an opinion...
... and I could be wrong :-)
(about technology and science we seem to be in agreement).
>
> M:
> IMO science and technology are intellectual
> products driven by social needs.
>
> R:
> EXACTLY! Such is the birth of a new level. We are in agreement again.....
>
HUMAN RIGHTS:
> M:
> Human rights are not social.
> R:
> What could be more social than rights? What do you think these are? Thats
> what rules and laws and commandments and constitutions and
> religions etc have been focusing on. Marco, are you serious?
The first point is that if I consider the human rights as social, while
science is intellectual, the result is that science is more moral then human
rights, according to my MOQ understanding. This would mean that if I close
you in a jail to study your reactions, it's moral, as science has the right
to
override your individual rights to walk free. So let me say they are, at
least, at the same level.
The second point is that human rights are not laws. The discussion about
democracy last month showed well that if a nation decides democratically
that it is admitted to kill who does not agree with the Pope (it's only an
example...), we can't call that nation a Democracy. Human rights are an
intellectual creation on which base laws and nations and social behaviors
can be measured.
The third point is that the creation of human rights has been the first
action in which IMO intellect has been at the same time director and actor.
The creation of those rights made it possible for the intellect to create an
environment in which it was free from the social. Freedom of speech, of
thought, of movement.. are all necessary for the intellect to reach its own
self determination.
And if this is not enough:
"Intellectual values of truth and freedom of opinion often oppose social
patterns of government". (Pirsig, SODAV paper). Isn't freedom of opinion a
human right?
ART:
> M:
> Art as carrier of meanings is not social.
> R:
> And "carrying of meanings" isn't
> social? Dang dude, there has been art since before writing.
> I would think it more likely writing developed out of art than vice versa.
1) There has been art since before writing. Of course. But also there has
been technology. (how is it possible to write without an even very simple
technology of paper, or stone carver... ? ) As said, intellect is very
older than the intellectual level.
2) I agree that writing developed out of art. Even technology developed out
of art (do you remember the ZAMM discussion about the rotisserie assembly ?)
In a wider sense, everything develops out of art. Every human activity is
(or at least can be) art.
3) IMO to carry a meaning is typically intellectual. During your absence
from the MF discussions, Magnus wrote about intellect:
> What's wrong with a definition like:
> An intellectual pattern is something that has a meaning.
IMO modern art abandoned in many cases technology just because technology
can't be a carrier of great meanings. When I ask for an "adult intellect"
able to look upwards, maybe I'm trying to tell the same thing Platt Holden
is saying:
PLATT:
> I've written before that the next great evolutionary leap will be
> recognition that intellect alone, while incredibly beneficial, is
> nothing without morality, harmony, peace-and that the greatest
> scientists already recognize this and will, along with a resurgence
> in the arts, carry us -kicking and screaming -- beyond mere
> intellect to a higher level where the values of our better natures
> reign. The MOQ gives us the intellectual foundation needed for
> that next leap.
Art is the key to the development of intellect towards something higher. You
see, social patterns found intellect as a valid tool among the human
possibilities. As said, social patterns worked for the development of
intellect. It's my opinion that the mission of intellect is necessarily the
same. To find and develop among our possibilities a new tool to build
something higher. Art is a big candidate. Up to now, art has been used
largely as a collateral activity, just a tool for the social grandeur, or,
more recently, a form of intellectual expression. But it can be more. It can
be carrier of beauty. And I would really like that beauty could become the
next human right.
"You have right to a lawyer". Shouts the policeman.
"You have right to the beauty" will shout the intellectual.
----------------------
Sorry for the length of this post. And thanks for your patience.
Marco.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST