Dear Roger, Rog, Risky, Risque, Mirror Boy & co,
Time for my comments on your 9/3 16:15 -0500 posting with your comments on
my provisional answer to question 1bI.
The relevant questions are:
1b WHAT PATH TOWARD DQ FOLLOWS FROM APPLYING THAT METHOD?
with as first sub-question:
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?
A little problem is, that these questions suppose that we agree on an answer
to
1a BY WHAT METHOD SHOULD WE DEFINE THE PATH TOWARD DQ?
that can roughly be summarized as
'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.'
I wrote 21/3 23:36 +0100 effectively that I don't mind to translate 'most
Meaningful' with 'best' and 'religious experience and/or aesthetic
judgement' with 'direct experience' (even if it removes some handles that
facilitate that choice for me). Distinguishing between choosing an
intellectual pattern of values and using it to judge actual and potential
developments of social patterns of values is essential however for fruitful
discussion of the question
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?
You write 9/3 16:15 -0500:
'I think your subquestion IS the answer. The path to social quality
(broadly) is to establish a balance between stability and versatility.'
Yes, off course, but only very broadly. Left and right, libertarian and
authoritarian will disagree on what exactly constitutes 'balance'.
They may agree on the need to combine more "fame and fortune" for internal
relative losers and less "fame and fortune" for external entities (in
order to stabilize society) with more motivation for all internal entities
to stay dynamic (in order to versatilize society). Left and right will
disagree however whether that only means more "fame and fortune" for
internal relative losers at the cost of external entities or also at the
cost of internal relative winners and possibly only to what extent that
motivation should be material (biological quality related). Libertarian and
authoritarian will disagree on the amount of (centralized or decentralized)
authority needed to re-apportion "fame and fortune" and to provide that
motivation.
And ... you and I may still disagree to what extent a global society is
relevant (i.e. international re-apportioning of "fame and fortune" and
nations feeling responsible for providing citizens of other nations with
motivation to stay/become dynamic).
You add that you 'would perhaps add that we should seek to maximize quality
across the greatest span and depth (depth for me is through the ladder of
levels -- building directly into the intellectual; span is across the widest
possible range of patterns -- in this case societies and individuals.)'
Can I interpret 'maximizing quality across the greatest depth' as 'balanced
maximizing of stability and versatility at the biological, social and
intellectual levels'?
Can I interpret 'maximizing quality across the greatest span' as 'balanced
maximizing of stability and versatility of global society is the most
relevant scale for identifying social progress'?
Then I agree.
You prefer to substitute 'DQ' with 'social quality' in the question.
I think we agree that the goal of social progress is some form of absolute
quality (whether we reach it doesn't depend on others reaching it or not)
that is dynamic (we'll never really reach it, it always moves on beyond our
grasp). I prefer to call that goal 'DQ' (reserving 'social quality' for
relative quality internal to the social level). You prefer to call that goal
'social quality', while admitting that 'social quality' can also be used in
that relative sense. Is that right? In that case we can rest this part of
our case and agree to disagree on a matter of little importance.
You propose to substitute as core intellectual value Jonathan's/my 'right to
dignity' (as a generalization of the basic self-evident unalienable rights
to life, to liberty, to happiness and to altering, abolishing and
instituting governments to secure these rights) with 'freedom to pursue,
speak, influence government etc. as long as you minimize hurt to others' or
'maximizing freedom while minimizing harm to others'.
I agree with 'maximizing freedom while minimizing harm to others' as core
value. 'Minimizing harm to others' implies 'maximizing the rights you grant
others'.
I don't think that makes my 'right to dignity' (and basic unalienable rights
in general) superfluous however. As with 'balance between stability and
versatility' people will disagree on what exactly constitutes 'balance
between maximizing own freedom and maximizing rights of others'. The mission
of the intellectual level (the highest intellectual value accessible to
people, the values John B. wanted us to explore 16/3 2:13 +1000) is to
minimize that type of disagreement (which is fed by competition for social
status).
One of its ways to do so is to proposing criteria for 'freedom' and 'rights'
that can be compared, trying to objectively (!) measure them using those
criteria and then establishing to what extent they are balanced. 'How much
freedom' and 'how much rights' should be considered 'normal' and by how much
may I increase my freedom where it decreases rights of others (and by how
much) before we consider the situation to be out of balance?
Another -less ambitious and more realistic- way to do so is to establish
(and promote agreement on) 'basis self-evident unalienable' rights that
should be granted to everyone and may never be harmed. No-one may claim more
freedom if that harms these fundamental rights of anyone else. Gradually
raising that basic level of rights (while the average freedom from
biological and social constraints is rising because of technological and
educational progress among others and creates room for granting rights to
others) limits the unbalance between too much freedom for some and too
little rights for others.
I'll return in a later posting to the rest of your 9/3 16:15 -0500 posting
(and your problems with 'dignity', 'duties' and 'responsibilities').
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 - 16:02:00 BST