Hi Rod,
Yes, exactly!
We need to extend progress in new dimensions -- both personally and socially.
We need a "greater kind of progress". That is what I want, and I believe
Wim does too.
So, what do fields/areas/subjects of progress have in common that
non-progressive fields lack? You already touched upon several through the
week, and I tend to agree broadly with you. In my own words, an environment
for PROGRESS includes:
1) A static ability to retain or preserve that which works combined with a
dynamic tendency to continuously adapt and explore and create the new.
Progressive eras tend to be cumulative (granted with occasional dead ends and
restarts). Pirsig's ratchet is a good metaphor (if perhaps a tad too
linear).
2) Progressive topics tend to be grounded in direct experience rather than
abstract. Compare the meandering, pointless crap of western philosophology
to the steady gains in science, medicine, wealth, crop yields and technology.
Success isn't theoretical, it is directly observable. Progress is
identifiable from digression and failure in the results it leads to. The
patient gets better or not, the crop yield increases or not, the experiment
is validated or not, GNP increases or not. Sociology, humanities, psychology,
philosophy and morality are some of the least 'objective' fields. They are
complex, resistant to experimentation, slow or difficult to isolate and
evaluate, and prone to fallacies of idealistic absolutes.
3) Progressive trends have momentum. They are propelled forward and can
continue to progress as long as the momentum is sustained. In science and
technology, knowledge leads to new questions and new tools. In medicine,
incremental improvement can continue endlessly to extend life's quality and
longevity. In evolution and free enterprise, competition provides the
momentum. Staying in place isn't an option -- you must improve or those
that do improve will leave you behind.
4) Although not as clear as the others, I would argue that progress -- in its
broadest application -- involves steadily increasing degrees of self
organization. This is most clear in the transition between levels (which are
evolutionary transitions). Matter is self organized energy. Life is self
organized matter. Complex life is self organized living cells. Ecosystems
and societies are self organized individuals, and science is self organized
knowledge built out of the most advanced self organized societies.
5) I also see progress as being virtually synonymous with knowledge. A
quality organism is one that knows how to adapt to itself and its
environment. A quality society knows how both to create and adapt to
individuals as well as to condiions in the environment or with other
societies. Science's correlations with knowledge is self explanatory.
6) Finally, I see progress as containing an element of increasing harmony. I
may be wrong here, but it seems that as you go up the levels or just progress
within them, that quality and harmony gain in span and depth. For example,
the best theories are in harmony with other theories, other fields of
science, with direct experience, with the needs of scientists, with the
success of the society and with the ecosystem and environment. (Note that
there is another dialectic between momentum and harmony). This corresponds to
your "greater kind of progress".
What are your thoughts? What is missing or needed? What are the elements of
progress? Are we violating some central tenet of the MOQ in this inquiry, or
are we just elaborating upon it?
Risky
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 - 16:01:58 BST