Dear Roger, Rog, Risky, Risque, Mirror Boy & whoever else I may have missed
of your multiple personalities,
You (all) seem to ignore my criticisms of 12/3 11:47 +0100. I really would
have liked to know why you first agreed 10/2 16:13 -0500 with the main parts
of my 9/2 19:56 +0100 posting and then hesitated on (10/2 16:13 -0500) and
objected to (9/3 15:54 -0500) my summary of what you first agreed on. It
seems I have to be content with your review of this summary 9/3 15:54 -0500
and 9/3 16:08 -0500. So I'll comment to that review:
You suggested 13/1 12:57 -0500 'defining The Path Toward Social Quality' and
agreed 10/2 16:13 -0500 that social quality can be both relative and
absolute and dynamic as well as static.
I formulated 9/2 19:56 +0100 as first sub-question
'1a BY WHAT METHOD SHOULD WE DEFINE THE PATH TOWARD DQ?'
- I meant 'define' in a descriptive sense,
- I meant 'the path of a social pattern of values',
- I referred to social patterns of values in general (hoping to end up being
able to say something about global social patterns of values once we agree),
- I referred implicitly to Pirsig's 'migration of static patterns of quality
toward Dynamic Quality' ('Lila' ch. 11) and
- I substituted DQ for social quality in its absolute and dynamic sense.
(See also my postings of 11/3 23:10 +0100 and 12/3 22:59 +0100.)
I answered 9/2 19:56 +0100 (in a nutshell):
'Choose from the available intellectual patterns of value the one that is
most Meaningful. That requires religious experience and/or aesthetic
judgement.
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.'
You wrote 9/3 15:54 -0500:
'We should define the path toward social progress based upon direct
experience. I believe this correlates with your "aesthetic judgement". Past
experience and intellectual theory (such as the MOQ) can certainly guide us
in our path.
I see questionable value in muddying the discussion of social progress by
overwidening the topic to 'DQ'. We can agree that progress is undefined and
dynamic and constantly evolving, but let's be careful we don't broaden the Q
beyond our intentions.
Furthermore, I fail to see what 'religious experience' offers -- at least as
a fundamental answer to the question. I prefer 'direct experience'.
Finally, your insistence on "most Meaningful" flat out confuses me. I have
no idea what value this term adds to the discussion. It seems to obfuscate
things.'
It's not clear to me whether you use 'define' in a descriptive or a
prescriptive sense. Should we 'directly experience' the way social patterns
of value SHOULD progress or the way in which they DO progress?
If you agree on using 'to define' in a descriptive sense for the moment, do
you seriously propose to 'directly experience' the way (a representative
sample survey of) social patterns of values are progressing? That would
imply living for some time with Osama in a cave, with Palestinian refugees
in a camp, with illegal Mexican immigrants in a nasty part of New York, with
Chinese farmers who have been induced to colonize Tibet, with middle class
urban laborers in the growing Indian IT business and as an influential
executive at one of the largest industrial corporations in the world. You
would have to immerse yourself long enough in these ways of life to
experience how they are developing and generalize a path from your
experience.
We simply can't 'directly experience' the way in which myriads of social
patterns of values among 6 billion people on this globe progress. We have to
make (mainly) 'indirect experience' and existing generalizations
(intellectual patterns of values) do. So we FIRST have to choose an
intellectual pattern of values BEFORE we can make sense of all our (mainly
indirect) social experience. Our choice of an intellectual pattern of values
DOES have to be based on 'direct experience', however, because there are (as
yet) no higher level patterns of values to guide us. I distinguish the
relevant types of 'direct experience' (DQ experience) in 'religious
experience' and 'aesthetic experience'. I personally have little affinity
with aesthetics and much more with religion, but if for you 'direct
experience' correlates most with 'aesthetic experience' that's fine with me.
That's why I included it in my answer.
After having abandoned wealth as overall indicator of social progress, I
honestly see no other way to define social progress except by broadening the
question to Dynamic Quality. We can enumerate separate progressive aspects
of ways of life (more true for some ways of life, less true for others) as
you do 16/3 9:15 -0500: science, technology, medicine, health, wealth,
lifespan, nutrition, education and our ability to sustain larger and larger
numbers of people off a given area of land. We could also enumerate separate
aspects of ways of life (more true for some ways of life, less true for
others) that show steady decline. Unless we find agreement on core
(intellectual) values on what is most important, we won't ever be able to
generalize on overall social progress (or decline).
I'm very glad that we seem to agree that 'it is better to have wealth'
should not be the indisputable core of the intellectual pattern of values
with which to make sense of social experience. (You wrote 10/2 16:13 -0500
'Health, wealth, education and opportunity are the underlying platforms of
the more important and dynamic intellectual level.' and that you agreed 'in
regards to advanced cultures' with David B.'s 26/118:16 -0700 'If you want
to talk about progress, the intellectual level is where it's at.'. I deduce
that you also agree about the relative unimportance of wealth if we're
talking about social patterns of values in general and about global social
patterns of values.) Striving for wealth can only be a temporary necessity
'to get beyond racism,
fundamentalism, sexism, totalitarianism, "overpopulationism", environmental
cannibalizationism, etc.' and therefore is not to be enshrined as highest
intellectual value in the indisputable core of the intellectual pattern of
values of our choice.
In order to find better (intellectual) core values we can only rely on
direct experience. My suggestion to use the concept of Meaning (as in 'the
Meaning of life') in this context, was meant to create a common denominator
between 'aesthetic experience' and 'religious experience' without
immediately having to fall back on (indefinable) Dynamic Quality. As I wrote
9/2 19:56 +0100:
'If we experience harmony with DQ in a work of art of in a religious
experience, we say "it is Meaningful" without being able to define a "truth"
that explains that experience of "Meaning".'
Does that make you agree with my answer?
'Choose from the available intellectual patterns of value the one that is
most Meaningful. That requires religious experience and/or aesthetic
judgement.
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.'
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 - 16:01:59 BST