Dear Roger,
Our discussion in the thread "Four theses" started -in a sense-
with Sam's "Thesis two: The West, especially the US, bears a
responsibility for encouraging the conditions within which this
pathological intellectual pattern [terrorism] has been able to
flourish." (17/9 10:35 +0100).
You entered the thread because you took offence at
interpretations/elaborations of this thesis that amounted (in
your words) to "blaming the victim".
I entered the thread 29/9 22:11 +0100 with suggestions for
changing the conditions within which terrorism might flourish. I
added: "The real tricky thing [with such suggestions for changes
'there'] is to suppose that 'they' are part of another, less
moral society and need our support (supposing we are already more
moral and know what they need at their level). Maybe 'they' are
indeed part of a social pattern of values that is on a lower
(sub)level (of the social level) than ours, but at the same time
society today is a global society: they are also part of a social
pattern of values of which we are a part too. This social pattern
of values requires 'haves' and 'have-nots' for its functioning.
Handing out recipes ... won't work as long as that global social
pattern of values of which we are a part too doesn't change."
Our direct discussion was in fact a "jump-over to the wrong
thread" from the "of doctors and germs..."-thread. There we were
discussing in fact the same subject: how to strengthen "the
immune system etc. of the impoverished and disintegrated
societies on which terrorism feeds and to which terrorism
restores bits of self-esteem" (my words 16/9 22:23 +0100). This
discussion led to discussion about the nature of "international
exploitation" ("receipt of stolen goods"?) and about the question
whether Americans "are a very wealthy people .... due to ...
values of ... freedom and creativity".
In your 29/9 19:00 -0400 posting you stated that "A casual
student of history would note that progress ... invariably comes
out of free and competitive environments where people have
property rights and the rights to their labors."
I reacted 21/10 11:50 +0100 with an alternative historical
explanation of progress, which can be summarized in my 29/9
words: "society today is a global society: ... This [global]
social pattern of values requires 'haves' and 'have-nots' for its
functioning".
>From that perspective I dismiss your point that Americans "are
wealthy because of [their] 'free and competitive
environment'". There are not wealthy peoples because they have
created the right environment for wealth-creation (which others
have not), but because the global social pattern of values needs
"wealthy" and "poor" peoples for its functioning. The 'free and
competitive environment' of wealthy peoples should not be seen as
causing their wealth (neither as an effect), but as just part of
the global pattern.
I have renamed the thread to express the (in my view) crucial
point of disagreement between us:
What are the relevant entities to evaluate the relative
performance of alternative social patterns of value: national
societies or the global society?
To the extent that Sam's thesis is true and terrorism is a result
of low performance of a social pattern of value, (part of) the
solution for terrorism lies in better performance. We can't
develop or agree on a solution before we agree on the relevant
pattern that does or doesn't perform sufficiently and the scale
on which it 'performs', national or global?
We agreed on measuring performance in terms of social quality
with wealth as only one of its indicators. According to you
"social quality is primarily created rather than redistributed"
(29/10 15:16 -0500).
There is a little problem however with measuring performance OF A
SOCIETY in terms of social quality.
Social quality, or "Dynamic Quality within a static social level
of evolution" ("Lila" ch. 20), is essentially RELATIVE and
INTERNAL to a society. "Social quality" is "social status" and
can be measured primarily in two dimensions: the regard of one's
fellow humans (celebrity, fame) and the ability to get something
from them without (biologically) forcing them (buying power,
money, fortune). It is not just PRIMARILY but even EXCLUSIVELY
distributed rather than created. It holds societies together and
makes them develop and compete with other societies because
low-status members strive for higher status by emulating and
copying characteristics of high-status members and because
high-status members strive to justify their status by promoting
(not only their own biological interests, but also) the interests
of the society as a whole ('noblesse oblige'). It both forms a
static latch for Dynamic Quality (by holding societies together)
and powers evolution (by motivating members to serve the
interests of the whole in outcompeting other -lower performing
...- societies).
In Pirsig's words ("Lila" ch. 20): "Celebrity is to social
patterns as sex is to biological patterns. ... This celebrity is
Dynamic Quality within a static social level of evolution. It
looks and feels like pure Dynamic Quality for a while, but it
isn't. Sexual desire is the Dynamic Quality that primitive
biological patterns once used to organize themselves. Celebrity
is the Dynamic Quality that primitive social patterns once used
to organize themselves. ... in a value-structured universe
celebrity comes roaring to the front of reality as a huge
fundamental parameter. It becomes an organizing force of the
whole social level of evolution. ... Money and celebrity are fame
and fortune, traditionally paired as twin forces in the Dynamic
generation of social value."
Wealth, the "objective", measurable value of the goods and
services that we can buy with money and that admirers bestow on
celebrities, is only an indication of social quality. Its
absolute value (so many dollars or guilders corrected for
inflation always buy the same amount of goods and services)
obscures the relativity of the social quality it measures.
You 'totally reject' my 'zero-sum, win/lose, redistributive view
of social quality. The only way to create wealth is to create
it.' (17/11 11:27 -0500) And if you don't equate social quality
and wealth?
Amounts of goods and services can be created. You lose some
natural resources, you 'burn out' some laborers etc. effects
which are not properly valued as deductions in the usual national
accounting systems, but I am willing to assume that even if you
do a positive sum remains. Having the disposal of a growing
amount of goods and services only implies higher social quality
for someone however, if the amounts of goods and services of
others in his/her social surroundings don't grow accordingly. We
can try to convince ourselves that our social quality is higher
than that of our parents or grandparents when they were as old as
we are now, because we obviously have more wealth now, but we
don't experience more social quality (supposing that we have
stayed in roughly the same social background as our parents and
grandparents).
Measuring performance of a nation in terms of social quality (=
social status) implies a larger society (a more global one) and a
larger scale social pattern of values in which low-status
societies strive for higher status by emulating and copying
characteristics of high-status societies and in which high-status
societies strive to justify their status by promoting more global
interests. This is a zero-sum game.
I am not really interested in 'analysis of which factors lead to
improved ... social quality' of countries (13/11 21:51 -0500) if
a higher social status of one country automatically implies a
lower social status of another country. I am interested in social
patterns of value that need less status differentiation (that
make less people unhappy to make other people happy with their
social status) to hold society together and power evolution. I am
interested in 'analysis of which factors lead to improved wealth
...' of countries only insofar as that wealth ends up with those
who need it to regain their dignity as humans (because they have
gone too far down in the status hierarchy) and where it can
diminish status differentiation.
It needs intellectual patterns of value to mould social patterns
of value in that direction. The more people identify with (their
functioning as elements in) intellectual patterns of value, the
less status differentiation they need.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 16:01:46 BST