Dear Rog,
Good to know that you're not holding your breath while looking forward to my
reply. Don't forget to eat and drink either, especially in Olympic times (I
don't want to miss speed skating on TV) and when the volume of MD-postings
exceeds 15 per day (I tend to read everything before I send out anything).
I am glad too that you're willing to continue exploring socio-economic
subjects with me (at least critically evaluating my long postings),
especially since everybody else seems to have lost interest (judged from
lack of comments).
You seemed to agree 10/2 16:13:38 -0500 on the following agenda of questions
to be covered:
1. How to define the path toward absolute quality?
1a By what method should we define the path toward DQ?
1b What path toward DQ follows from applying that method?
2. Is society making progress along that path?
3. How to assist people in other parts of the world to make progress along
that path.
3a. Would that also require change in our patterns of values?
3b. Where and to what extent is reduction of global inequality needed and
reduction of what inequality between what entities?
And after that I have a design for a Q-economics for you in preparation...
You also seemed to agree on the following summarized answer to question
1a BY WHAT METHOD SHOULD WE DEFINE THE PATH TOWARD DQ?
a) Choose from the available intellectual patterns of values the
one that is most Meaningful. That requires religious experience
and/or aesthetic judgement.
Be aware that every intellectual pattern of values (as a sine qua
non for its stability) rules out discussion about its core ideas
('common denominator' ideas that enable discussing 'truth'). So
it may be necessary to create a new intellectual pattern of
values at a higher level of abstraction in which the
'indisputable' cores of the best available intellectual patterns of
values becomes disputable. Pirsig paved the way for us by
creating a MoQ that makes disputable the
subject/object-distinction that is part of the 'indisputable'
core of most modern Western intellectual patterns of values. It
is impossible to conceive of and compare all available
intellectual patterns of values without such an intellectual
pattern of values at the highest level of abstraction.
You will choose the intellectual pattern of values that has the
'right' balance between stability and versatility, between the
size of its 'indisputable' core and its 'room for dispute'.
b) Use the chosen intellectual pattern of values to judge how the
balance can be enhanced between stability and versatility of the
social pattern of values concerned.
Be aware that this path may not be same for every social pattern
of values. It depends at least on inorganic and biological
circumstances and to some extent also on its social environment.
It is also useful to distinguish between
- the 'path of migration' which that social pattern of values
would take of itself without any intervention from the
intellectual level,
- the path it would take under influence of the already present
intellectual patterns of values and
- the path it can take under influence of the intellectual
pattern of values of your choice.
Take into account the limits that are set by the (required
stability of) biological and inorganic patterns of values that
underpin the social pattern of values concerned. The path to be
defined will have to within those limits and will have to be
better than the path of migration without the proposed
intervention applying the best available intellectual pattern of
values.
It will be a path which combines:
- a relatively better share of 'fame and fortune' for internal
relative losers to more effectively lure them away from opting
out and becoming external entities,
- a relatively worse share of 'fame and fortune' losses for
external entities in external win/lose or lose/lose interactions
to more effectively lure them into opting in and becoming
internal entities,
- more motivation for relative losers to emulate the relative
winners and
- more motivation for relative winners to stay ahead.
On further consideration I don't think the stability of an intellectual
pattern of values correlates positively only with the size of its
indisputable core. The degree of 'indisputability' should also be taken into
account. A small indisputable core with near-tabu status may make an
intellectual pattern of values more stable than a large one that -however
difficult- can be disputed.
So let's proceed our exploration:
1b WHAT PATH TOWARD DQ FOLLOWS FROM APPLYING THAT METHOD?
Sub-questions are:
1bI What is the most Meaningful intellectual pattern of values with which to
judge the balance between stability and versatility of a social pattern
of values?
1bII How can that balance of a given social pattern of values be enhanced
(more than without our intellectual intervention)?
1bI WHAT IS THE MOST MEANINGFUL INTELLECTUAL PATTERN OF VALUES WITH
WHICH TO JUDGE THE BALANCE BETWEEN STABILITY AND VERSATILITY OF A
SOCIAL PATTERN OF VALUES?
We seem to agree that an intellectual pattern of values with at its core 'it
is better to be wealthier' is not the most Meaningful one. I agree with you
however that striving for wealth can be very Meaningful in some
circumstances, e.g. (in your words:) 'in societies (or subcultures) that
have yet to get beyond racism, fundamentalism, sexism, totalitarianism,
"overpopulationism," environmental canibalizationism, etc.'.
To me that most Meaningful intellectual pattern of values (applicable to
judging that balance) appears to be an intellectual pattern of values with
at its core 'it is better to have dignity'.
You will recognize Jonathan's 20/2 0:25 +0200 proposal of 'the RIGHT to
DIGNITY' as generalization of
3WDave's 'four basic self-evident unalienable Rights' (18/2 8:14 -0600)
1 The right to LIFE
2 The right to LIBERTY
3 The right to HAPPINESS
4 The right to ALTER, ABOLISH and INSTITUTE ... governments to secure these
rights
I guess Jonathan didn't mean his 'right to dignity' also to be a fitting
generalization of
Pirsig's 'moral right of intellect to be free of social control' ('Lila' ch.
24) which gives 'a rational, metaphysical basis' to the rights to
1 freedom of speech
2 freedom of assembly
3 freedom of travel
4 trial by jury
5 habeas corpus
6 government by consent
AND a fitting generalization of
Platt's additions (18/2 16:34 -0500)
1 right to property
2 right to religious freedom
3 right to bear (and use) arms
Somehow 3WDave's rights (quoted from your Declaration of Independence?) seem
more basic, self-evident and unalienable to me than those of Pirsig and
Platt. (I am glad Platt too prefers 3WDave's list over Pirsig's.) And ...
they are more easily subsumed under 'the right to dignity'.
I was very charmed by Jonathan's proposal. This 'right to dignity' fits in
very well with my religious conviction as a Quaker that every human being
has direct intimate access to divine guidance (also formulated as 'that of
God in everyone') and should be treated accordingly.
Dignity is -unlike status, unlike fame and fortune- an intellectual value.
It implies having the possibility to uphold one's personal truth, integrity
and identity. Unlike social quality it is not relative in the sense of being
dependent on the dignity of others. (Status, fame and fortune can only be
measured as relative quantities.) It is relative in another sense however:
one can only have dignity relative to the amount and complexity of one's
truth, integrity, identity etc.. A simple-minded person (forgive me the
M-word, Bo) can display the same dignity as a Gandhi with less personal
intellectual values. Most animals have no personal intellectual values at
all and can be used for human purposes without loss of dignity ... if only
they are treated humanely, for otherwise the human involved loses part of
its dignity. I think I read on this list (but can't trace back when and
whom), that a chimpanzee will beg for its life when under threat of being
killed by a human. If that is true, I think chimpanzees should not be killed
for sport or other human purposes, as humans should not be killed by other
humans for selfish purposes. Maybe dolphins, who recognize and act upon the
need of drowning humans (a different species!) are in the same category.
Their 'right to dignity' should at least contain a 'right to life'.
Identifying 'rights' is only one of the ways of evaluating and prescribing
human behavior. Other ways are identifying 'duties' and 'responsibilities'.
They are logically related: to the extent that one is 'responsible' for
something or someone else, one has a 'duty' to safeguard its of her/his
'rights'. Evaluating and prescribing human behavior is the way in which
intellectual values intervene in the social level (create exceptions to
social patterns of values) and the way in which they can enhance their
balance between stability and versatility.
This type of logic, relating 'rights', 'duties' and 'responsibilities' to
each other, should also be at the core of the intellectual pattern of values
I would choose. The relevance of such an intellectual pattern of values is
obvious, I hope: To what extent does the US government have responsibility
for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and for those countless millions
everywhere on the globe that may radicalize into terrorists because of a
lack of dignity which they -rightly or wrongly- hold US foreign policy
responsible for...?
How can we establish which 'rights' and 'duties' someone has and which
'responsibilities for whom/what'?
With that question we are starting to leave the 'core' of the intellectual
pattern of values of my choice behind. So this is a good question to start
with in my next post ... if the foregoing can meet with your approval.
I don't intend to break records every time...
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 - 16:01:56 BST