Hi Wim!
WIM:
You wrote:
'We should define the path toward social progress based upon direct
experience.
It's not clear to me whether you use 'define' in a descriptive or a
prescriptive sense.
Risky:
I meant that we should discover and begin to see the path toward progress
based upon our experience. Those paths through the woods that lead to the
best combination of health, wealth, opportunity, freedom, self determination,
environmental harmony, fairness, and that establishes a strong foundation for
intellectual progress. By *define* I meant that the path would emerge out of
the otherwise unmarked forest floor. How does it emerge? We find it by
trying different directions. Over time we can see which ones are better than
others and which are worse, and we can start to see patterns to the trail
that give us hints as to which direction to go.
As for other cultures, until the paths in the forest merge, they need to
define their own way, with support from those of us further along.
W:
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.
R:
They directly experience it though, and they help us define the path or paths
as we go along. I am fine at starting with intellectual hypotheses, and
seeing how they work. As for what I would start with, I would start with
proven solutions that lead to the current best results (as above) and
experiment with them in ways that make sense. I would also focus on the
METHODOLOGY of progress rather than any certain DIRECTIONALITY of Progress.
I am sure that proven religions offer some value along our path, but the
answer isn't in their text.
W:
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).
R:
I would offer another model. Your route leads right to Hayek's "Road to
Serfdom." Once we set one goal for society, then everything else can be
manipulated and destroyed to pursue that goal (and historically has been).
The key is to allow individuals to express their own values. Democracy and
free enterprise are successful because they do this so much better than their
alternatives (though no where near perfectly). With free enterprise and
democracy, you allow individuals to have a say in where society goes. There
is some centralized direction and control, but even the controls depend upon
the decentralized opinions of individuals.
W:
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.
R:
I would not keep an individual from pursuing wealth, comfort, security, or
whatever. Wealth is one measure of an individuals ability to influence
reality. It is a measure of freedom. Others include health,
education/intelligence, status, etc. Complex systems cannot always be
measured on one dimension.
W:
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".'
R:
It doesn't help. I do not know the meaning of life. Seriously -- you have
lost me.
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 - 16:02:01 BST