Hi everyone
Dan
Thanks for forwarding your mail to me, I found your reply extremely interesting and thought provoking, I just hope I can do the same in this reply!
Dan Glover wrote:
>
> Be that as it may, the role of individual vs. society is very complex yet summed up simply in the MOQ as a Dynamic evolutionary advance from biological level functions. Intellect, on the other hand, is a Dynamic evolutionary advance from social functions. So it is biology (our senses) which allows us to perform evaluations of situations giving rise to social law, which spells out very concretely what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms. Finally, intellect allows the individual to come along and say, > hey, this isn't right.
I think I agree with you from an absolute point of view, but am interested to look at this in more detail, I.E how the transition takes place from a social law to an intellectual law. Is it simply that the intellect looks at the old social law and says “Hey, this isn’t right” or is it that the intellect looks back at the offence that has been committed and says “Here’s another way of looking at it”? It may seem a mute point but I don’t think it is, I think this digs right down to the depth of whether the intellect ignores society and makes its own mind up (poor choice of words, but I hope you see my point) about a situation or whether intellect gains evolutionary ground by stomping all over societies views.
I am interested in what you think about this.
We have police and soldiers to deal with moral conflicts arising between the biological/social levels, which is how assault is seen in the MOQ. As far as individuals being treated equally, surely you aren't serious. And I don't know how it is in other countries but here in the States once a felony conviction is on ones record it stays there. But that is perhaps beside the point.
I think it is beside the point but maybe I should clarify what I mean. From the point of view of a record, I agree that it should show, you’re right about that. I was thinking more about environmental standards. A criminal should be entitled to a healthy living environment even if that environment is provided by the state. I.E clean cell, nourishing food, some stimuli, access to education, access to exercise and others and of course, the absence of torture!
Maybe in some Pollyannish imaginary world rehabilitation works, but that is only because the prisoner has finally come to understand that s/he had damned well better do exactly what they're told or they will never get out (remember Phaedrus' very astute insight in the insane asylum?)
I do remember Phaedrus’ insight but I don’t think it deserves a place here. Rehabilitation doesn’t work at present as we, as a species are only beginning to understand how the mind works. Until we fully understand this we can’t possibly hope to treat all the illnesses and conditions that are responsible for criminal behaviour. Do you think we should stop trying simply because we haven’t got it right yet? Once we get the methods sorted out, there is no reason why rehabilitation won’t work, more insight is needed in the area, and that isn’t going to happen overnight.
As an aside, do you think that most of societies problems with criminals come about from the perception of a soul. A soul is considered by most western religions to be a never changing thing, so of course wrong doers will never change. Perhaps if this view was changed to the more acceptable view of us being no more than animals that respond to the stimuli we receive then societies perception of others would move on leaps and bounds? I am interested in your view on this.
> Isn't derived experience redundant though? For certainly an experience must be derived in order to qualify as experience. A dream not remembered is not an experience yet it is still a dream. The cells in our bodies constantly replacing themselves are not experienced yet they continue replacing themselves.
Maybe I am once again guilty of not making a clear case as I don’t think you have understood the point I was trying to make – either that or I haven’t understood your response! :o)
I was trying to highlight the cases where the person thinking about a situation hasn’t actually experienced that which he is being asked to think about, but is trying to gain an accurate view of it. Take for instance a person being asked to pass down punishment on a convicted criminal. In decided what sentence to pass, the judge must take into account the distress of the victim or victims, the motive for the attack, the ferocity etc. the judge was not involved yet he is being asked to understand the experience without actually being there. This is derived experience: an understanding of a situation gained from pure thought on the factors involved without having personally experienced them.
As a little experiment, think about the processes involved in your cells replacing them selves, try concentrating on a few of them, you can almost feel them go through the processes you are thinking about. What you are thinking about is not actually happening, so how do you explain what you experience? This is an example of derived experience. A feeling through thought with no physical stimuli as initiator.
Thanks for replying Dan, I hope my continued argument of the law isn’t becoming tedious, I just find it a highly motivating area to think about!
Kind regards
Richard.
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 - 16:00:51 BST