To: Sam
From: Rog
SAM:
Perhaps we could agree on a form of words that would distinguish between
those bodies which represent social-values-but-repress-intellect and those
bodies which represent social-values-but-enhance-intellect. I would argue
that there are churches that fall under both categories - and indeed secular
bodies which fall under both. On the religious side, one option is to
distinguish a religious community from a faith community, but there are
difficulties with that. I would be interested to hear what other people
think on this.
ROG:
Well said! As you know, we are touching upon a related thread in the MF
forum this month. I think explorations into the nature of freedom and types
of freedom can lead to a similar distinction in social bodies or patterns of
value. I am drafting two posts for that forum on this angle. I will try to
avoid repeating any arguments here, but my thoughts are as follows:
1) Social patterns of value need to be both stable and adaptive. I believe
Pirsig uses the analogy of a ratchett. Successful patterns must be able to
lock onto that which works, yet must be dynamic and versatile enough to
explore even better solutions or new solutions as the world changes. I think
a lot of the problems with older social patterns is that their stability has
gotten in the way of their dynamicness.
2) Social patterns, and religious patterns specifically, attempt to control
and direct behavior. In a way, they can be said to limit freedom by
encouraging certain behaviors and by discouraging others. (btw, they can also
create and enable new freedoms too) I believe some religious and secular
patterns take the limitation of freedoms WAY to far. In fact, I believe some
have been converted into a means of exploitation to control people for the
benefit of religious (or other) leaders at the expense of the believers and
at the expense of society in total.
3) An interesting case study on the issue is available in Christianity.
Catholicism, as practiced in the 16th century, discouraged individualism,
pursuit of knowledge, and direct access to God. The conduit to behavior and
direction was the church. Protestantism was a retaliation to this system of
values, which encouraged individuals to learn to read (the bible) and to
actively pursue higher values with no intermediaries. Lots of scholars argue
on the point, but a case can certainly be made that one set of social values
leads nowhere (meaning society and culture stays where it is), while the
other contributes to the development of science, enlightenment, democracy,
the industrial revolution and free enterprise. (Yes, I just read "Wealth and
Poverty of Nations")
4) I believe, to oversimplify, that those social/religious values that
restrict and discourage harmful activities (stealing, lying, cheating, having
children without being able to support them, harming others, etc) are
valuable, and those that restrict potential (encouraging illiteracy,
requiring conformity, limiting the potential of women, suppressing creativity
and novelty, making one wear silly hats,etc) are invariably destructive.
Feedback is welcome. Be sure to see my posts in the other forum too,
especially on the essential nature of freedom.
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:33 BST