Dear Roger,
Thanks for at last answering (even if only implicitly) my 12/3 11:47 +0100
question:
'What was wrong with my summary?'
I take what you write now (13/4 11:36 -0400, 'I reserve the right to change
my mind at any time...') to mean that my summary wasn't wrong, but that you
simply changed your mind.
You apparently changed your mind
from
'Well said' and 'Okey dokey smokey'
when commenting 10/2 16:13:38 -0500 on my first formulation of the first
stage of my method to define the path of a society toward DQ
into
a cautious 'Hmmm. I guess so...'
later on in the same posting when commenting on my summary.
You explained 9/3 15:54 -0500 that you 'didn't get [that summary]
completely' and 'Now that you clarify I think I would draw exceptions.' I
wonder why you didn't recognize that the earlier formulations were the
clarification you needed. (Something wrong with my summary after all?)
Of course you have the right to change your mind at any time. However, if
you do so in the course of writing an e-mail to me, I would prefer you to
FIRST make up your mind and rewrite it and only THEN send it.
Because I supposed internal consistency in your posting and that you
understood what you replied to (as you neither stated otherwise nor asked
for clarification) I put a lot of effort in using what (I thought) you had
agreed with as a basis for another long posting (5/3 9:46 +0100) and in
summarizing and indexing the lot on several places on the web (see my 5/3
22:43 +0100 posting). I hope that you understand my frustration resulting
from your 9/3 postings when all that effort seemed to have been wasted and
the additional frustration resulting from your not taking notice of the
venting of my frustration in my 12/3 11:47 +0100 posting.
Do you agree NOW with a reformulation of my first summary of the first stage
of a method to define the path of a society toward absolute quality
FROM
'Choose from the available intellectual patterns of values the
one that is most Meaningful. That requires religious experience
and/or aesthetic judgement.
...
You will choose the intellectual pattern of values that has the
"right" balance between stability and versatility, between the
size of its "indisputable" core and its "room for dispute".'
INTO
'Choose from the available intellectual patterns of values the one that is
best according to your direct experience. You will choose the intellectual
pattern of values that has the "right" balance between stability and
versatility, between the strength of its "indisputable" core and its "room
for dispute".'
IF
you keep in mind that the next stage is to apply the chosen intellectual
pattern of values to prescribe social progress
AND
that an intellectual pattern of values in MY definition contains a
relatively indisputable set of ideas at its core AND sets of ideas in the
fringe that compete for the status of being 'most truthful' in the way that
is defined by these core ideas.
Can you please explain to what extent and why you now disagree with the
following (the extracts of my 9/2 19:56 +0100 posting which you copied in
your 10/2 16:13 -0500 posting and commented on with unreservedly positive
comments), how you propose to adapt them to become more acceptable to you.
Please note
that these extracts were my answer to the question
'1a. By what method should we define that path?' and
that your answer now (13/4 11:36 -0400) to this question ('empirical
experience') is rather feeble and might benefit from expanding with those
parts of what I wrote that you agree with.
[start of the extracts from my 9/2 19:56 +0100 posting in your 10/2
16:13 -0500 posting with your expressions of unreserved agreement]
'W:
So how to define the path of a society toward Dynamic Quality?
In accordance with your provisional conclusions in the 'Overdoing
the Dynamic'-thread I would define the path of any static pattern
of values toward Dynamic Quality as balanced maximization of
stability and versatility plus harmonization with higher level
patterns of values.
Preserving or reproducing a society, holding together its
constituent entities, is a social pattern of values.
- Maximizing its stability implies better deals in internal
interactions for relative losers to lure them away from opting
out (more equal distribution of benefits) and worse deals in
external interactions for external entities (to make opting out
less attractive as an alternative).
- Maximizing its versatility implies leaving or creating enough
difference in social quality (status) between its constituent
entities to motivate the underprivileged to emulate the
privileged and the privileged to stay ahead of them by creating
new or more status symbols (e.g. wealth, art, enlightenment), but
not too much difference in social quality on pain of making the
underprivileged apathetic and the privileged lazy.
R:
Agree 100%
W:
The balance depends on the intellectual pattern of values that
is the reference for harmonization.
This is where the intellectual level gets involved that is needed
to grade and judge societies: the intellectual value of a society
depends on its balance between stability and versatility. Judging
that balance (or harmony) implies (selectively) describing a
society and comparing that story of how that society works with
stories about other societies.
R:
All right...
I also agree with your discussion of paradigms (social stories), and the
importance of context to quality.
W:
Without competing social patterns of values, the intellectual
level is hardly distinguishable from the social level.
A social pattern of values is reproduced by people copying
behavior of other people over generations; its
static latch is reproduced behavior or 'culture', 'accumulated
ways to do things'. Without win/lose interactions with external
entities (even if only with the predators an isolated
hunter/gatherer society meets in its natural environment) there
is no need for internal win/win interactions, no drive to
meticulously copy 'ways of doing things' that have proven
conducive to survival.
R:
I could not have said it better myself.
W:
An intellectual pattern of values is reproduced by people copying
motives from other people (their reasoning that is supposedly
'behind' consciously motivated actions); its static latch is
reproduced motives or 'ideology' (in a non-derogatory sense),
'accumulated ways to justify actions'. In a stable social pattern
of values without serious competitors nearly all behavior is
'normal' and needs no conscious justification. Motivation and
copying motives from others is unnecessary.
R:
I am starting to understand your use of the "J" word now.'
[I am leaving out an extract that you didn't agree unreservedly with.]
'W:
An intellectual pattern of values facilitates non-biological
competition between societies (discouraging opting-out and
encouraging opting-in with words rather than weapons).
Recognition of an intellectual pattern of values (and thus of
alternative social patterns of values, alternative patterns of
behavior) implies both the need and the possibility to
consciously justify one's behavior. It is necessary because one
has to choose between those competing patterns of possible
behavior. It is possible because the intellectual pattern of
values contains not only stories about 'what exists' at lower
levels of value, but also ways to justify behavior with those
stories. Consciously justified/motivated behavior (which I
further call 'acting' or 'action') implies (relatively free)
choice and the possibility to break, change or at least make
exceptions to social patterns of values. The main 'trump card'
(as Angus calls it) at the social level is not DQ itself, but
intellectual quality. An intellectual pattern of values should
not be interpreted as a set of ideas that directly interferes in
the social level, changing lower quality social patterns of
values into higher quality patterns of values. It is rather a
pattern of ways in which social patterns of values migrate 'of
themselves' toward Dynamic Quality as mediated by intellectual
quality: by competition, by disputing the 'truth' of the
justification of those opting in and out of societies, 'is this
society really, objectively, better than that one?'...
R:
I am fine with all this.'
[I am leaving out another extract that you didn't agree unreservedly with.]
'W:
How then to choose between alternative intellectual patterns of
values in order to chose the best one to use as a reference for
harmonization of social patterns of values?
An intellectual pattern of values migrates toward Dynamic Quality
by balanced maximization of stability and versatility plus
harmonization with ... Dynamic Quality itself (for lack of higher
level patterns of values).
- Maximizing its stability implies enlarging the set of 'common
denominator' ideas that are difficult to dispute.
- Maximizing its versatility implies leaving or creating enough
'room for dispute', a large enough range of alternative sets of
ideas that can be combined with the 'common denominator' ideas,
to stimulate creativity, but not too much 'room for dispute' to
make every 'truth' seem arbitrary and relative and consensus
apparently beyond reach.
- The balance can be experienced as absolute Dynamic Quality.
R:
Well said.
W:
I propose to indicate ('point to') the higher level value beyond
truth as 'Meaning', capitalizing it to distinguish it from the
'meaning' of a 'text' in a certain 'context' which defines its
'truth', the 'fit' of that 'text' with 'reality'. 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'. This
culminates in the experience that there must be a 'Meaning of
life' or '... of my life' even if no amount of science can tell
me where life is eventually heading for or originally originating
from and 'Who' could have given life that 'Meaning'.
Let me summarize what I have been doing in this post until now:
1. I accept your suggestion (13/1 12:57 -0500) to formulate as
key question 'How to define the path toward absolute quality?'.
2. I also accept your suggestion (implicit in the title of this
thread) to ask ourselves next whether society is making progress
along that path.
3. Given your agreement with the idea that international
inequality contributes to terrorism and may need reducing, the
next question is how to assist people in other parts of the world
to make progress along that path.
Sub-questions would be:
3a. Would that also require change in our patterns of values?
3b. Where and to what extent is reduction of global inequality
needed and reduction of what inequality between what entities?
R:
Okey dokey smokey.'
[end of extracts from my 9/2 19:56 +0100 posting in your 10/2 16:13 -0500
posting with your expressions of unreserved agreement]
Can you please also keep me informed on other points which you explicitly
agree on in one posting and change your mind about later? You will have
noted that I draw heavily on things that you wrote in the past during our
discussion. Keeping track of your changes of mind and the reasons for them
seems essential to me to prevent further miscommunication, irritation and
wasting of energy.
This discussion is still worthwhile for me because of the opportunity it
gives me to crystallize my thoughts in a way that is acceptable for someone
like you, but I don't like having to waste time on repeating things over and
over again to check whether you still think the same about them.
The intellectual pattern of values which we are exploring has a MoQ at its
core and at its fringe several sets of ideas applying a MoQ competing for
the status of 'highest intellectual quality'. This intellectual pattern of
values requires openness to (new) experience (as a MoQ underwrites radical
empiricism) and therefore must allow for changes of minds of contributors,
for 'dynamic'. The possibility to change your mind in the face of new
experience is indeed essential for intellectual progress.
However, if we want to put our shared beliefs and ideas to test and change
the world with them, they shouldn't change unrecognizably between the moment
we start applying them and the moment we experience the results. We also
must find a static latch for them that is somewhat more extensive than your
'empirical experience', 'empiricism' and 'needs to be able to lock in past
successes yet remain open to continuous creative design and redesign'. The
possibility to change your mind without (explaining to others that you had)
enough new experience (warranting a change of mind) undermines intellectual
progress, because it gives social patterns of values a chance to take over,
to erode the stability of the intellectual pattern of values.
You asked me to help you refine, correct and improve your answers to our set
of questions:
YOU ANSWER question
'1. How to define the path of a society toward absolute quality (social
progress)?'
WITH
'By the quality produced at all levels across the greatest span and depth.
The
path cannot be defined in advance, but our past experience and current
knowledge can help us to identify some of the higher quality likely paths.'
If you (still) agree with subdividing this question in
'1a. By what method should we define that path?' and
'1b. What path follows from applying that method?'
you implicitly agree that we should define that path by FIRST choosing a
method and THEN applying it to define (in advance!) a path.
By the way, I agree with your answer AS A SOMEWHAT MORE COMPLETE ANSWER
(than 'empirical experience' but a by far not complete enough answer) to
question 1a.
Maybe we should therefore reformulate question 1b as:
What possible paths can we identify applying that method (leaving the final
choice to future history books)?
It seems to me that we can easily expand this answer to question 1a with the
things we agreed on before. Could you please give that a try picking and
choosing what you agree with from
1) the above extracts from my 9/2 19:56 +0100 posting those parts which you
(still) agree with and
2) my 4/4 23:00 +0100 description of a model of primary and secondary
progress at all levels (my METHODOLOGY of progress with 4 aspects)?
YOU ANSWER question
'1b. What path follows from applying that method?'
WITH
'The path of dynamic experimentation and constant striving for better
quality. The preferred path needs to be able to lock in past successes yet
remain open to continuous creative design and redesign.'
It seems to me that you just rephrase the 'method' and don't describe a path
(or 'some of the higher quality likely paths') of social progress.
I'd suggest you to try to describe paths of primary and secondary social
progress for specific social patterns of values and additionally paths of
primary intellectual progress to the extent that this 'mediates' these two
types of social progress.
As you agreed 24/3 8:41 -0500 with my 23/3 18:36 +0100 interpretation of
'maximizing quality across the greatest span' as 'balanced maximizing of
stability and versatility of global society [being] the most relevant scale
for identifying social progress' I'd suggest you to take social patterns of
values holding together global society as examples when describing paths of
social progress.
If you (still) agree with subdividing question
'1b. What path follows from applying that method?'
in
'1bI. What is the best intellectual pattern of values with which to judge
the balance between stability and versatility of a social pattern of
values?' and
'1bII. How can that balance of a given social pattern of values be enhanced
(more than without our intellectual intervention)?'
you implicitly agree that we should FIRST describe the path(s) of primary
intellectual progress that (can) 'mediate' primary and secondary social
progress and only THEN balanced paths of primary and secondary social
progress.
YOU ANSWER question
'1bI. What is the best intellectual pattern of values with which to judge
the balance between stability and versatility of a social pattern of
values?'
WITH
'Empiricism -- by the results that the pattern creates and by our
experiences with its adaptability and resilience.'
It seems to me that you are still only rephrasing the method and not
describing a path, in this case the path of primary intellectual progress.
I'd suggest to describe primary intellectual progress by first
distinguishing three types of intellectual patterns of values that
historically succeeded or will succeed each other by the type of metaphysics
that is part of their (relatively indisputable) core ideas (as I did in my
30/3 16:20 +0100 posting to Bo): Multiple Subject Metaphysics, Subject
Object Metaphysics and Quality Metaphysics.
I'd suggest to go on by describing the fundamental changes applying a MoQ
would imply in relevant (for global society) systems of ideas like
international law, macro-economics and the (economic) theory of
international economic relations. I made first moves (which you didn't
appreciate) by suggesting the institution of universal rights to 'dignity'
(to 'be able to uphold one's intellectual values'), to 'freedom' (to 'be
able to influence reality') and to 'equality' (to 'be equally able to
influence reality as others that share that same reality'). (Please note:
UNIVERSAL rights, not just applicable in modern liberal democracies and to
be equally ABLE to influence reality, not to be equally influential if they
choose to be lazy or dumb ...) I'll return to my suggestions in due course
in order to try to enhance your appreciation of them, but for the moment I
ask you to formulate your alternative suggestions.
YOU ANSWER question
'1bII. How can that balance of a given social pattern of values be enhanced
(more than without our intellectual intervention)?'
WITH
'By setting up systems that are free and dynamic and that strive to
progress. ... distributed control is needed as well as central command. ...
cooperation is needed as well as constant higher-level competition. ...
win/win (mutually beneficial) interactions lead to self organizing systems
of higher quality at progressively higher emergent levels.'
I agree. Can you please proceed by
1) clarifying how you apply your answer to question 1bI here and
2) applying this very general answer to question 1bII explicitly to global
society?
YOU ANSWER question
'2. Is society making progress along that path?'
WITH
'Yes. Almost every measure of social and biological quality (health, wealth,
democracy, freedom, education, lifespan, yield of nutrition per acre) has
gone up in virtually every continent -- especially in the last 50 years.
Intellectual progress has been even more dramatic -- at least in the
direction of science. There is of course no shortage of problems still
needing to be addressed, and many of these problems are as a result of
progress. Environmental stress, overpopulation, overly rapid change, an
absence of meaning as religion is discarded and not replaced, inequality,
weapons of mass destruction, 3rd world cultures with first world technology.
These need to be solved next, but we need to acknowledge that solutions
inevitably lead to new problems and new unrealized opportunities.'
My gut feeling too is that global society is making progress. However, I
find it difficult to rationally evaluate (thereby justifying that gut
feeling) whether the positive absolute value of the AVERAGE primary social
and intellectual progress really outweighs the negative absolute value of
the UNEVENNESS and INEQUITABILITY of the distribution of the results
compared to people's contribution (and ability to contribute) to that
progress. My moral intuition is, that people should benefit equitably from
(global) progress compared to their contribution to it TO THE EXTENT THAT
they have had a choice whether to contribute more or less. The global
playing field is very much tilted in favor of the already wealthy and
powerful as a result of the global social pattern of values which I
described 23/9 23:51 +0200 and (with Sam's help) 25/9 23:00 +0200:
'Wherever an initial dose of good luck or (even marginal) merit gives a
geographically differentiated part of a society an advantage over the rest
of the society, the difference tends to grow rather than diminish over time.
As a Dutch saying goes: "De duivel schijt altijd op de grote hoop." (The
devil always shits on the big pile.)' and 'Mt 13.12 - "For to him who has
will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not,
even what he has will be taken away."'
My impression is that making the global playing field more even is more
urgent than boosting average primary social progress and that further
primary intellectual progress should be directed mainly toward this goal.
Global terrorism is -for me- a case in point supporting this impression.
Anyhow, I think we need to differentiate between the different types of
progress and the different social patterns of values that hold global
society together to really, rationally, evaluate whether (global) society is
really making social progress. Could you give it a try?
YOU ANSWER question
'3. How to assist people in other parts of the world to make progress along
that path?'
WITH
'We must focus on those systems and patterns that are in common in
progressive
cultures and we must identify barriers prevalent in less functional
cultures.
The former includes democracy, human rights, free enterprise, property
rights, rule of law, freedom from exploitation, education, open competition,
etc. The latter include totalitarianism, exploitation, and pretty much the
opposites of the first list.
A problem here is that many societies that are nonprogressive are this way
because they are resistant to change. They are overly static. They actively
fight off dynamic freedom. As such, their cultural immune system is their
own worst enemy. Some of these cultures want the rewards and qualities of
progressive societies without adopting the necessary changes -- this may
very
well not be possible. Others flat out reject the direction that progressive
cultures have taken. They don't see the emergent problems as being worth the
progressive gains. These may stagnate too. On the other hand, perhaps they
will find a better way to progress -- a new path.'
I do not disagree with your answer, but I think it oversimplifies things by
ignoring the patterns of values (social and intellectual ones) that connect
progressive and stagnant/retarded cultures.
Please keep in mind that you agreed with this question 10/2 16:13 -0500
BECAUSE you agreed with the idea that international inequality contributes
to terrorism and may need reducing. (See the above extract from your
posting.) In that context the question implies the question 'How to reduce
global inequality?' and requires an answer that NOT ONLY focuses on the
barriers to progress that are internal to stagnant/retarded cultures but
ALSO to the barriers that are external to these cultures and the barriers
that are implied by the fact that cultures (= social patterns of values plus
connected intellectual patterns of values, as defined by Pirsig in a note on
p. 32 of 'Lila's Child') compete for survival in the context of secondary
(social and intellectual) progress.
Could you try to refine and improve your answer to this question with this
in mind?
YOU ANSWER question
'3a. What change does that require in our patterns of values?'
WITH
'I see the need for clarity on the issue. I also see the need to stop
propping up crony dictatorships. The other solution is global capitalism. I
believe that competing corporate entities help establish new, practical
"cooperatives" that break people out of the geographic, nationalistic,
racialistic tribalism. The more groups that people belong to the more their
groups overlap and the less hostile they are to non-members (he may not be
in
my religious group, but he is in my community or in my work group).
Capitalism of course needs disciplined rules and regulations and systems and
constraints. We need to help establish these in any culture that is
interested.'
I agree that the overlapping of groups is an essential aspect of
(intellectually mediated) secondary social progress and a beneficial effect
of capitalism. My issue with (global) capitalism is mainly its role in
giving more to him who has and taking away from him who has not. Capitalism
doesn't only need rules, regulations, systems and constraints to prevent
reversion to 'the chaos of mutual exploitation aka "the law
of the jungle"'. Even if it functions optimally, it accumulates the benefits
of social progress NOT ONLY with those that have contributed to it BUT ALSO
with those that by accident of history are born on the right place and in
the right times to benefit from infrastructure, ingrained culture and other
'piles of shit' left by the devil. Capitalism systematically passes over
those that would have contributed if they could in the distribution of the
benefits it produces and does nothing to enable them to contribute more in
the future.
I have no obvious alternative. Centrally commanded socialism IN THEORY
remedies this defect of capitalism and -when judiciously combined with
market mechanisms- needs not be less successful in terms of primary social
progress, BUT IN PRACTICE (under pressure of secondary social competition)
reverts much too easily to pre-capitalist oppressive cultural patterns
(Stalinism was a reversion to Tsarism, Maoism was a reversion to
pre-revolution Chinese imperial patterns). Centrally commanded socialism on
a world scale, with a central command subject to a system of democratic
elections, MIGHT escape this fate of reversion (because there has not yet
been an oppressive cultural pattern on a global scale to revert to), but I
am not very inclined to take the risk.
My intuition is that reducing global inequality (of distribution of results
of primary social progress) in order to take away some of the occasion to
global terrorism may require successful cultures to become less competitive
(in the context of secondary social progress, not necessarily in the context
of secondary intellectual progress). Why can't successful economies like
that of the USA or of the Netherlands/European Union not open up more
generously to imports from less developed countries without demanding
reciprocity if they are inventive enough to provide their outcompeted
farmers, employees in low-technology industry etc. with alternative
employment? Why can't they accept government regulations in less developed
countries against profit repatriation on direct investments (enforcing
re-investment) if this induces the devil to spread his excrements more
evenly?
Mind you: this would have to be a voluntary renunciation from
competitiveness on the part of these successful economies, not something to
be enforced by some sort of global government!
What would you think about global capitalism tempered by voluntary restraint
inspired/mediated by an intellectual pattern of values stressing long-term
global common interests (like preventing a pattern of global terrorism) that
in turn is inspired/mediated by some replacement for traditional religion
(lending Meaning to renunciation of short-term national interests)?
YOU ANSWER question
'3b. Which types of global inequality between what entities should be
reduced to what extent and how to enhance the balance between stability and
versatility of the social pattern(s) of values that operate(s) on a global
scale?'
WITH
'As I have remarked, I have few concerns with inequality in advanced
societies. The US, for example, is very dynamic, with people extremely prone
to gaining and losing status over time. As for inequalities between
societies, the solution is to focus on freeing up the less functional
societies so they can join the ranks of the progressives. Those choosing to
resist the recipes for progress must be (gently) allowed to fail, but as
humanitarians, we need to offer assistance (safety nets) to the people in
need. We also need to protect their neighbors and their environment from the
follies of static or dysfunctional cultures. (Israel is an example here --
the shame and ineptitude of dysfunctional and frozen theocratic Arab States
is channeled by the leaders away from internal progress and diverted to
exterminating the neighboring model of progressive democracy.)'
I am primarily concerned with global inequality too. I see a very uneven
global playing field as a more fundamental reason for this inequality than
dysfunctionality of (national) cultures.
I see functionality of cultures as rather resulting from than resulting in
(primary and secondary) social success. Just as population control (lower
birth rates) is a natural by-product from wealth, democracy and political
involvement of people are a by-product of the growth of middle-classes
resulting from a more favorable role in the global division of labor. (A
country which mainly produces raw materials at decreasing world market
prices will not easily grow a middle-class capable of sustaining multi-party
democracy.)
I guess you will agree that global safety nets requires sticking to
international agreements on a minimal level of (OECD defined) Official
Development Aid (excluding military aid and aid to relatively advanced
countries like Israel) and considerably raising this minimum level. Maybe we
even need a global system of taxation, organized by UN agencies, to
circumvent the breaking of international agreements by notorious laggards
like Italy and the USA.
This is still no real answer to the question though. That requires
distinguishing different types of global inequality and of different social
patterns of values holding together global society. Could you give that a
try? Maybe we could take Israel and its neighbors as an example? What types
of inequality exist in that region and what social patterns of values
(potentially) hold together these peoples and prevent all-out war and
destruction?
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 - 16:02:10 BST