Hi Risky, Wim
A metaphysics should be able to handle all questions asked within it, or
arising from it, so I think we're safe.....
Progress is not necessarily always a 'forward" movement, progress is that
which is the best ( do you agree here?) next step. As in evolution there are
many dead ends, our society picks one which it thinks is best and goes with
it, it may prove that this was the wrong choice, and now the option is to
ignore this and carry on regardless, or backtrack to a point where an
alternative path is offered.
But backtracking requires us to admit we went wrong somewhere along the
line, I think Wim's idea is along these lines, but unlike Wim I don't see
religion as an alternative path. In fact I see some religions as the
beginning of the wrong path.
So an investigation into what has been the 'best' our history has to offer
is in order.
the move toward DQ is a move toward 'mystic reality', the pre-intellectual
experience of reality
any thoughts?
Rod
on 16/3/02 6:09 pm, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com at RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> 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
>
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