Hello everyone
Richard Edgar wrote:
>
> Hi Dan
> Hi everyone
>
> Dan wrote:
>
> It would seem to depend on the situation. Letting intellectuals run
> loose is very dangerous for a society and so in totalitarian regimes
> they are often times locked away or exiled. So it's not that intellect
> ignores society so much as it opposes it.
>
> Richard:
> I think the question is that of intent. Does the intellect INTEND to oppose society, or does it intend to provide a system of power whereby the values of the individuals are best regarded? I think your example is an unfair and loaded one, as a totalitarian regime isn’t even a system ruled by society, it is ruled by one person. Take Iraq, the United States’ best friend Saddam Hussain rules yet he does not rule for the will of his people and the people are too scared to throw him out of power. Is that really an example of a nation lead by society? So by extention, is any totalitarian system a fair example of such a thing? If you look at it from your own nations history, and the values of the Victorians then you could never say that the new intellectual values have sought to oppose the old values, it’s just that the old society values have become outdated.
Dan:
One person cannot rule alone; they must forge powerful allies. I am not
sure how you can say new intellectual values don't oppose old ones... of
course they do! Not only must they oppose old social values, but new
intellectual values must destroy them entirely. Why did the Church burn
Bruno at the stake and threaten Galileo with the same fate? The old
Church views HAD become outdated, but society doesn't care! They were
going to enforce those views regardless. Michael Foucault wrote:
"Language is no longer linked to the knowing of thing, but to men's
freedom." (The Order of Things)
Society doesn't want to allow freedom, while intellect strives towards
freedom and away from any social patterns of value that restrict that
freedom.
>
> Dan wrote:
> It would seem the only way to gain evolutionary ground is for the
> intellect to stomp all over society, as you put it. Yet first, do no
> harm. For society may just hang you by your thumbs!
>
> Richard:
> Society still has some power as we are in a transitional period, in a few generations, there will be no society to hang me up by my thumbs, and since the intellect doesn’t stomp it just ignores, society will not be able to stop the process.
Dan:
Come on now, who's kidding who here? Society has all the power. And that
is not going to change in a few generations or a few hundred. It is an
ever regenerating cycle... new ideas arise, flourish while they may then
pass away to make way for new ideas. Society latches onto new ideas from
time to time but there is a deep undercurrent that WILL hang you by your
thumbs if you get out of line (figuratively, perhaps, yet one never
knows).
Richard:
Question: Many of those on this group seem to think society and
intellect are at war, and intellect is trying to forcefully gain ground
on society. If this is the case, then since there are so many people in
society, why aren’t they using their power?
Dan:
Well, it's not that intellect is trying gain ground... intellect opposes
society in any fashion. Evolutionary forces of value push intellect in
an entirely different direction.
Richard:
If the process is that of a battlefield, as seems to being suggested,
then why aren’t politicians and lawyers and policy makers using their
physical power to appose it? I think the answer is that the society
isn’t aware of what is going on as it is NOT a war, and intellect is not
trying to stomp all over society it is just ignoring it and gaining
ground secretly by doing so. I see no evidence of the war between the
two sides that people here keep talking about.
Dan:
Actually the MOQ states intellect is at war with society, not the
politicians or lawyers. I've yet to see it put that way by anybody else.
Phaedrus talks of the Cleveland Harbor Effect and how often times we
don't see something staring us in the face because of preconceived
notions. And again, intellect cares nothing about gaining ground on
society. Intellect opposes society.
>
> > Dan:
> 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.
>
> > Richard:
> > 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!
>
> Dan:
> But can prisons really be a healthy living environment and also deter crime in the way they are meant to?
>
> Richard:
> I think the problem is with the choice of words here, and since the choice of words probably reflects your thoughts on the matter I’ll try explain it another way. You say prisons should deter crime? Maybe they are simply a place to hold those that commit crimes until such a time when it is thought that the criminal will not reoffend? In which case, they should be allowed access to material and an environment with which to better themselves and learn of their wrongdoing. Societies view of power is an extension of that of a totalitarian government, to rule over wrongdoers through fear and punishment. Is it not better to not have wrongdoers in the first place? Continuing from part of mail I just wrote to Kenneth, the primary driving force of the new power-system (in my opinion) is wealth. Those that don’t have it, want it, those that can’t get it through legitimate means will try to get it illegally. Is it not better to give them the chance to get it legally so they won’t!
> offend? How can you do this with a judiciary system whose main concern is fear and punishment?
Dan:
Please don't get the idea I am advocating an environment of fear and
punishment. Rather I see that as conflicting biological/social patterns
of value; the efforts of society to keep biological urges under control.
Should a criminal have access to education? I believe this moves up a
ratchet leap to conflicting social/intellect patterns of value. Society
provides an education in the hope of rehabilitating the criminal.
Personally I question why society should entitle a criminal with an
education while not providing one to all it's citizens, but perhaps that
is just me.
In poor rural areas throughout the country here in the States, rich city
folk have been steadily moving in over the last two or three decades.
Invariably the poorer neighbors steal from them at first, but as time
goes by the money the rich folk bring in gradually becomes diffused,
raising everyone's standards of living, and the stealing stops. Wealth
never stays in a vacuum. It spreads around.
>
> Dan wrote:
> Why shouldn't society demand that a criminal pay for his or her own upkeep?
>
> Richard:
> Society has every right to demand it, but since intellect ignores society, it doesn’t matter what they demand. From the intellectual point of view I just raised, how can a newly released criminal have the chance to lead a normal life if he has $50,000 debt from his incarceration? Isn’t he more likely to reoffend in this case?
Dan:
Well I envisioned a pay as one goes plan... work release, chain gangs,
etc.
>
> Dan wrote:
> Why should being a criminal entitle one to anything at all?
>
> Richard:
> Because it’s for the good of the rest of us. Give them nothing, and they’ll take what they can get. The only other way out is to lock them up for good but what does that solve? You’d simply be locking possible taxpayers up and having to pay for their upkeep at the same time. That’s not economical!
Dan:
I still do not see why society should give to a criminal that which it
doesn't give to every citizen.
>
> Dan:
> Rather all citizens in a society are entitled with certain rights as long as they follow the rules of that society. As you say though, there is a fundamental sense of decency also involved here; karma, if you will.
>
> Richard:
> What if they don’t follow them because they have no choice not to? Because they don’t understand why they do wrong? Sense of decency is only a good fundament if you assume everyone has one. What if there are medical reasons for a lack of this sense? Lock them up and throw away the key just because they are Ill?
Dan:
In that case it seems we are now addressing inorganic/biological level
function and no longer biological/social function and it would fall to
society to care for these individuals.
>
> > Richard:
> > 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.
>
> Dan:
>
> Unsure in what context you're using "mind" here. If you mean mind as brain then we are not on the same page, so to speak.
>
> Richard:
> I do mean brain, and I was taking it off on a tangent so apologize for not making that clear! :o)
>
> Dan:
> I also question whether most crimes are inherently due to illness or any treatable conditions. Perhaps a percentage. It seems to me many crimes are a case of just plain stupidity. As far as stopping the rehabilitation efforts, I did not know any had started yet!
>
> Richard:
> Assaults and that kind of thing I agree with you on the stupidity thing. But why do people steal? Is the driving force of this poverty or stupidity? Is poverty treatable?
Dan:
And is being stupid a treatable condition? We seem to be falling into
the nurture vs nature argument here...
Richard:
If the answer is “yes, get a job” then you need skill to get a job and
if you’ve already stolen because of poverty and throw them in the kind
of prison you seem to advocate, then how are they going to learn the
skills they need? Consider sexual assault, 75% of which is associated
assault, I.E the attacker knew the victim. Why would someone hurt
someone they knew if they knew they were hurting them? The vast
majority of associate sex attackers lack the quality of empathy; they
can’t read people reactions to determine what they feel. The condition
is treatable, and is treated successfully (if you believe the few
psychological reports written on the subject). So there we have two
crimes that are committed be people who can be helped through a simple
rehabilitation programme, they occur in most prisons i!
> n the UK, not sure about he U.S. yet.
Dan:
Perhaps in the UK studies are done along these lines but here in the
States the revenge factor overrides. Take Ted Bundy, for instance.
Rather than studying this man to try and determine why he was like he
was, society executed him summarily. Richard Speck... another example,
only he was left to his own recourses in prison where he quote "had the
time of my life." Granted, these men are extreme cases, but in neither
case was society served in the best possible way; by performing
psychological studies perhaps some commonality could be derived and a
rehabilitation program that really works may have resulted? Who can say?
>
> > Richard:
> > 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.
>
> Dan:
> I would say your suggestion of society's view changing to one of seeing humans as being no more than animals is perhaps a ratchet leap down and not up, resulting in a "Brave New World" of some sorts or another.
>
> Richard:
> I’m surprised you said this, Dan. How is viewing ourselves as animals a step down?
Dan:
Daniel Dennett mentions the Hutterites in his book "Darwin's Dangerous
Idea" and it seems to me their culture is just what you are advocating.
The Hutterites live in colonies which split in half when they reach a
certain size, one half staying and the other half leaving and creating a
new colony. Dennett writes:
"Wilson and Sober are right to present the Hutterite ideals as the
essence of an organismic organization, but the big difference is that
for people -- unlike the cells in our bodies, or the bees in a colony --
there is always the option of opting out. And that, I would think, is
the last thing we want to destroy in our social engineering. The
Hutterites disagree, apparently, and so, I gather, do the hosts of many
non-Western memes. Do you *like* the idea of turning ourselves and our
children into slaves to the 'summum bonum' of our group? This is the
direction the Hutterites have always been headed..." (Darwin's Dangerous
Idea, pg. 474)
Hope that helps you see where I'm coming from.
Richard:
I see it the other way. The evolution of the discovery of our origins
seems to be taking us in this direction! The Ancient Greeks saw us
being the center of the universe, with God’s watching us. The Church
after Galileo then says we are not the center but God’s still watch the
universe and us came into existence when God created us! Darwin then
says evolution creates species so God didn’t create us, surely the next
step is to accept that we are no more than animals that are now being
controlled by non-human power-system. Just my view, and perhaps a
controversial one? :o)
Dan:
It is a misunderstanding to say Darwin replaced God with evolution. Just
asking, but have you read Darwin's "The Origins of Species"?
>
> Thank you for yet another thought provoking reply!
> Kind regards
> Richard
And thank you too, Richard.
Dan
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