Hi Wim,
Thanks again for your clear and well thought out responses.
*
First off, I agree with your prescriptive definition of progress as "the path
it can take under influence of the intellectual pattern of values of your
choice."
However, I would rewrite it as "the path it can take under influence of
competing intellectual patterns of values."
**
Second, I do not understand how my writing that I am looking for a
methodology or a scientific method of progress can leave you with the
impression that I am "just looking for a primitive, social method of making
progress (trial and error), renouncing any 'methodology'" , or that I would
set "off at random." When I use the term "trial and error", I do not mean
*random* trial and error. Intellectual theories are based upon past
successes, awareness of past failures and the ability to create new solutions
that logically seem to offer potential.
***
Third, when I mention we should export successes to cultures that must define
their own way, I mean that the basic patterns should be tried, yet adapted to
the peculiarities of the culture. The obvious answers are for destitute
countries to import political and economic freedoms.
The Freedom House survey of the 22 countries that are classified as free
shows that they comprise 7% of the worlds population, yet produce 81% of the
world's GDP. The 33 countries that are mostly or completely unfree make up
66% of our planet's population, yet only produce 13% of products. (note:I am
not measuring progress on this one dimension, it is just one example of a
suggestion.)
****
Fourth, you ask "How do you intend to export recipes for creating social
quality in a way
that doesn't make the already wealthy wealthier, the already free more free
and the relatively healthy healthier still or that at least enhances the
chances of the disadvantaged just as much?"
My answer is that this can only come about by exposure and example. I
believe that global economics offers much here. For businesses to invest in
markets, they need to be ensured that their property rights are protected and
that they have freedom from government confiscation or mob rule. Over time,
dictators and theocrats will either continue to exploit their people and
leave their country destitute, or they will embrace liberal social theory and
begin the climb into the 21st century.
I believe the balance between opportunity and outcome are fairly well
balanced today in "Free" countries. For example, in the US, families in the
bottom quintile in 1979 gained more in income than any other segment. 85% of
these families moved up at least one quintile, some all the way to the top.
(be careful for statisticians that instead of tracking family movement
instead resort into quintiles and then "imply" that it is the same folks
always in each group -- it ain't so!)
I suggest freedom and democracy and property rights and contract law and
education and social safety nets be used to solve the issues with imbalance
and low absolute levels in the destitute countries. We should start with
proven success. If it can't be adapted, then we can experiment with new
ideas.
*****
Fifth, I agree that "best results" can be measured upon a plethora of
dimensions. I suggest we improve quality across the greatest span and depth
(with depth being up and down the levels).
******
Sixth, the "proven solutions that lead to the current best results" in
health, wealth, opportunity, environmental harmony, freedom, education,
intellectual achievement etc are of course the very values and ideals of
places such as the Netherlands and Great Britain. The solution is fairly
obvious, the problem is enacting it. Cultures are resistant to change --
even for the better sometimes. I think many people prefer to enslave women,
to be ethnocentric, to use violence to suppress others' religious beliefs, to
study 5th Century thought rather than 21st century thought, etc, etc. It is
easier to embrace ones' past static patterns, regardless how disfunctional,
and to blame Westerners or Capitalists or Israelies or whatever than to come
to grips with the results that ones' culture actually lead to. (as ONE
example)
Another challenge is helping people to oust their exploiters and dictators.
*******
Seventh, I agree with you that:
"Technological progress is not always conducive to survival. Some
types of technological 'progress' unbalance ecosystems or represent a kind
of 'stagnation' in the sense that they don't address urgent survival
problems. Technological 'progress' can represent primary social regression
rather than progress ..."
This is especially true in immature technologies. Technology evolves faster
than societies and people can adapt to them, causing disharmony and bad
karma. Not sure of the solution here yet...hmmm?
*********
Eighth, I agree that current technology and social knowledge "are more than
sufficient to safeguard survival of homo sapiens and of all
mother earth's ecosystems." However, I don't follow that these methods are
not "freely available to all societies," nor do I believe that broader
distribution would slow technology (It would actually speed it up). The
problem isn't so much that these technologies are unavailable, as much as it
is that they are *unrealizable* in many cultures. The missing social
networks and infrastructure undermine much of humanities' ability to share in
technological progress. (I actually suspect that spreading technology prior
to social development often backfires -- it is the extreme example of the
disharmony in point 7 above. Overpopulation and dictators with MIG's are two
examples.)
*********
Ninth, it is probably irrelevant to the thread, but I do not agree that:
"Primary intellectual progress is not identical with increasing knowledge.
Knowledge is not always conducive to group survival. Some types unbalance
societies or don't address urgent social problems."
I believe that knowledge is ultimately a measure of a system's ability to
survive and thrive. (this would mean that a society with factories and 767s
that destroys its planet IS less knowledgeable in the end than a culture with
hunters and gatherers that doesn't). Let's not pursue this now though...
**********
Tenth, I do not follow why you say that " What's primarily needed for that is
collective rights and expertise, the right and the ability of any group and
any society not to be
pushed back (by social competition) into a situation in which it does not
have the technological means to safeguard its own survival and that of its
ecosystem."
Most cultures have gone on for the entire history of man and never developed
democracy, free enterprise, technology and science. One group of competing
nations stumbled-upon/created this breakthrough and has completely changed
the potential for the human race (for good and bad.) The problem hasn't been
pushing the other cultures back, as much as it has been failing to get them
to follow the example of success. Despite this, the advances in modern
nations have STILL done more to improve health, wealth, education and freedom
in the past 100 years in these less fortunate cultures than they saw in their
entire previous existence. (This despite obscene population mismanagement.)
***********
Eleventh, I am fine with your METHODOLOGY of steadily emergent progress over
successive levels, with higher levels first improving lower levels and then
developing new qualities of their own.
************
Twelfth, by "proven religion", I mean one that has shown its value over time.
I am not referencing proven as an acronym for truth in conventional usage.
I think it is an idiosyncrasy of English.
*************
Thirteenth, I like what you wrote on meaning:
"The Meaning of life is the freedom (from static
intellectual patterns of value) to keep creating new 'realities'."
**************
Fourteenth, I disagree that:
"Hayek's mistake was, that his 'political compass' only showed two points:
South-East (libertarian-right) and North-West (authoritarian-left). He
explained away inconsistencies by presenting every political position that
was not libertarian-right as being authoritarian."
He strongly supported well-thought-out safety nets for citizens for
education, food, shelter, health, jobs, etc. (He suggested various types of
social insurance working in harmony with extensive carefully protected rights
to individual freedom). He does state though that convential social planning
was rarely of this nature. The book does indeed primarily focus on your
alleged axis, but I think that Hayek is by no means a conservative (he
accuses conservatives of being nationalistic, anti-intellectual and primarily
focused on preserving priveledge.)
***************
Fifteenth, I look forward to your plan that proclaims"No part of this Plan
may
be achieved by governmental decree, market power or in any other way that is
inconsistent with its goals without explicit permission of all people
concerned." Sorry if I doubted you.
****************
Sixteenth, for an example of why I believe the *right to dignity* is paved
with trouble, please go to David's post last weekend where he used this exact
same phrase to call for a right to a live-able wage for all full time workers
regardless of the fallout of this initiative. He was willing to implement it
regardless of how it affected freedom or even whether it actually made things
better or worse. (BTW, I happen to agree with his goal for wages, just not
with his methodology.)
I do not know why modern liberal democracies need to create a new "right to
be able to uphold your intellectual values." I feel quite free here now.
Don't you?
When you write that it "is a VEEEERY basic level of rights
that limits the unbalance between too much freedom for some and too little
rights for others only marginally," what do YOU mean? I guess I need to know
more about what problem it solves. (and you may be right and I may be too
timid)
*****************
Seventeenth, if you want to define a duty as an obligation to NOT do certain
things, then I see your definition of duty as the same as mine for a *rule*.
I agree we all have a duty to follow rules. What I read into the term though
is a responsibility to DO certain things. I think duties are more invasive
to freedom, and as such are best used in careful moderation.
In response to your statement that "The only way to have freedom ourselves is
when other people accept duties and responsibilities to grant us that
freedom," I have no perceived obligation to create freedom for you other
than which I freely impose on myself. I strongly agree that there must be
rules to ensure the strong ARE NOT FREE to crush the week. BTW, I am fine
with self imposed duty. I mistrust only externally imposed duty.
When you state:
"The freedom to change something negative isn't worth a damn if you don't get
something (static!) better instead. Freedom should be specified: what is it
you are escaping from and what is it you are getting instead?"
I am completely unable to follow what you are suggesting. What kinds of
things ARE YOU suggesting people get instead, and who does your "filling in"?
Then when you say:
"Shouldn't a right to 'freedom' imply the right
to equal ability to influence reality for others that share that same
reality? Shouldn't my claim to freedom, to a specific ability to influence
reality, be at the same time a duty to grant others that same right to
freedom, the same ability to influence that reality to the extent that we
share it?"
I say absolutely not. The only complete social solution to ensure totally
equal influence in every sphere of values is to lower everyone to the lowest
common denominator. The dumb and lazy cannot be guaranteed the same influence
as those that invested themselves and others. The grasshoppers cannot be
ensured the same influence as the ant, for to do so guarantees that one is a
fool to be an ant. Societies cannot guarantee equal influence or success.
The best they can do is offer a level playing field (or even a field slightly
tilted to helping the less influential, but not so much as to encourage the
influential to stop striving themselves). If I am misunderstanding you
again, or missing something here though, I apologize in advance.
***********************
Finally, I agree that your distinction of primary and secondary progress
distinguishes between interactions created by win/win interactions at the
underlying level that create new patterns at the emergent level that are
themselves not necessarily win/win. Yes, this model works well for me. I
need to think about it more though to fully grasp its ramifications.
Hugs and smooches!
Rog
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 - 16:02:09 BST