Hi Wim
WIM:
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?
You wrote:
'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.
R:
Yes they will debate this. They should. They work like little hypothesis
makers that build the ideas that we later choose to try or reject. Or to use
a bicycle metaphor, each side of each debate works like a pedal. We move a
little to the right and then to the left. We move a little to centralization
and then to decentralization. However, with each stroke of the pedal we also
make some potential progress toward better social answers. If we can stay
dynamic and static, we can sustain the tension and interplay between the
pedals and continue to generate momentum. Different bicycles can represent
different societies too, and the riders of these cycles can observe and learn
from each other.
Your interpretations of span and depth match mine.
W:
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 is to minimize that type of disagreement
R:
Actually, I would say it could also be considered the mission of the social
level. The intellectual level turbo-charges it.
W:
'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?
R:
We don't know the answers to these questions. We must answer them to the
best of our ability along the way. That is what progress is.
W:
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 limits the unbalance between too much
freedom for some and too
little rights for others.
R:
I am fine with experimentation along these lines. I think the last 100 years
of social progress has included various safety nets and protections that we
have codified along the way. Notice each country or state can act as a lab
for the others. PERSONALLY, I think *right to dignity* is paved with trouble.
I am frequently wrong though.
You know, I really think the difference between the two of us might be that
you are looking for the theory of progress, and I am just looking for the
methodology to discover progress. I am looking for the "scientific method" of
society. I recognize that once I establish this methodology though, that I
won't necessarily know which theories will be found.
This issue relates back to the discussion on a one or two step process too.
Let me just say that I am fine with us following your lead and going to a two
step process. I would caution though that if we establish wrong or inadequate
measures, that this can lock us into a static trap. We need to stay dynamic
in our initial measures of progress and of stable/dynamic.
WIM:
You object to an basic
inalienable 'right to dignity' as a candidate for such values, but I don't
really understand your reasons for objecting.
RISKY:
I may be wrong. I simply suspect that it leads to spiraling demands for
dignity. My suggestion is that if you believe it so much that you try it
somewhere. The proof is then in the results. What I defend is your freedom
to suggest the idea.
Also, I am fine with your answer on religion. I did not mean to disparage
your faith, but only to contrast it with two absurd alternative faiths.
There was no attempt at guilt by association or anything.
WIM:
I don't agree with you that duties and responsibilities are only the
antithesis of freedom, to be used carefully and in moderation. They are the
(only) way to safeguard freedom (of others). The only way to have freedom
ourselves is when other people accept duties and responsibilities to grant
us that freedom (and the rights that constitute it, fill it in positively)!
R:
There is a big difference between prohibitions or rules or laws against doing
disfunctional behavior and duties/responsibilities. The former discourages
activities in a certain direction, the latter implies requiring activity. To
clarify, there is a big difference between saying that you can't drive over
60KM per hour and saying that you have a duty to drive between 20 and 60KM
per hour at least once a week. The latter is a lot more prescriptive and
restrictive in potential behavior if you think about it.
I do not see why rules cannot also work as safeguards of freedom. They
establish the accepted boundaries that constrain freedom. Duties and
responsibilities are MUCH more restrictive in effect, and should be used
carefully and in moderation.
Could you please explain why someone has a duty to grant us freedom? Isn't it
better to say you have all the freedom in the world between these accepted
boundaries, and throw the duties out as superfluous to the issue? Maybe I am
missing something though...
W:
It is on the intellectual level (and not on the social level) that zero-sum
games don't exist!
R:
I agree that duty can potentially be positive sum. I did not suggest NO
responsibilities, just that they be judiciously created, as they are major
restrictions in freedom.
Positive sum interactions do occur throughout the biological and social level
-- they are not JUST intellectual. A male and female procreating is a
positive sum interaction. Multiple cells cooperating to form a multicellular
organism with new features not contained in the cells themselves is a
positive sum interaction. The bacteria in animals guts that helps the
animals digest (and provides a steady supply of food to the bacteria) is a
positive sum process. Trading is a positive sum process. Division of task
and expertise is a positive sum process. Etc, etc.
W:
As you wrote: ''rights ... are carefully crafted over social history to
maximize quality and minimize harm. Quality rights maximize freedom,
maximize versatility, maximize quality and minimize harm.'
Only I would substitute 'rights, duties and responsibilities' for merely
'rights'. This balancing act of migrating social patterns of values would
not be possible when everyone were only busy securing 'rights' for
themselves by wheedling them out of others.
R:
But I already explained my notion of rights is primarily one of freedoms.
You don't need to "wheedle" freedoms out of others. Do you?
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