From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Mon Oct 07 2002 - 16:43:52 BST
> PACO:
> I think freedom/liberty is essential within the MOQ.
> Jefferson defined liberty as "unobstructed action."
> However, he clarified that RIGHTFUL LIBERTY
> is "unobstructed action... within limits drawn around
> us by the equal rights of others." I think that says
> it well, and it certainly does not align with
> establishing a government, morality , economy and
> measure of legitimacy based upon the Koran.
>
> I don't have the time to delve too deep into your
> larger question, but I will say that Dynamic Quality
> certainly involves the freedom to experiment, improve
> and to gain in versatility. Also, check out *Non Zero*
> by Wright. It explores the progress of quality
> (biologically, socially and intellectually) in terms of
> positive-sum (win/win) interactions. In other words,
> actions between quality patterns that maximizes freedom
> without hurting any patterns is good. Even better
> though are interactions that benefit all parties
> involved while maximizing versatily/freedom.
>
> Paco
This positive sum idea is exciting to me. The idea of freedom has the
potential to clear up moral issues both within and between evolutionary
levels since an ethic of freedom runs across all evolutionary levels. It can
even explain how one evolutionary level gives rise to the next, which would
seem to give freedom special status among morals. However, I think the
value (or reality or pattern or whatever) to which the word "freedom" points
needs a better definition than "unobstructed action."
When we think of freedom as "unobstructed action..." with reasonable
limitations, we don't see that even within a consistently applied justice
system where no one is valued over another, some of us will still have less
freedom than others in the sense of a capacity for self-expression, i.e.
Some of us seeds are planted in crappy soil with little hope of developing
into our potential. e.g. Kids growing up in North Philly aren't as free as
the wealthy kids on the main line in suburban Philadelphia, women generally
are not as free as men, blacks are not generally as free as whites. Justice
may only mean that rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep on park
benches. It doesn't necessarily increase freedom. The civil rights
movement lost steam when laws no longer represented specific obstructions to
action, meanwhile true freedom was never achieved.
Help me out with defining this thing. I don't think its about finding the
appropriate limitations on our actions. We most often use freedom to
describe what limitations we don't want, but I think there is a significant
positive here that we can strive for, it's not just a negative.
Does it make sense to think of freedom as what all patterns of morality are
trying to achieve and can we assess them based on how well they increase
freedom?
"unobstructed action" has something to do with freedom but I don't think
that's the whole thing. Maybe freedom is capacity for Quality?
Steve
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:54 GMT