"Jonathan B. Marder" wrote:
> We're stuck somewhere in the Dakota prairies
> with no sign of the mountains.
The last I time I checked my map, to reach the mountains from Indiana
one must spend some time on the plains.
> The recent exchange between Drose and Horse on libertarianism vs.
> socialism gave me an angle to characterise what I perceive as a
> collective malaise within the Lila Squad.
> What I see is that society sometimes limits my innocent and apparently
> harmless behaviour.
> I regard it as my right to take out my car onto the public streets
> whenever I choose, provided I have paid the appropriate tax, have a
> license, ensured the car meets usual standards etc.. Yet, in several
> cities of the world, I may actually be barred from taking my car out on
> specific days - to avoid overcrowding and pollution. Surely my one
> individual car can have absolutely no noticeable impact on either count!
> Another example is in the trading of stocks and shares. Individuals are
> allowed the freedom to buy and sell at will, yet there are mechanisms to
> CLOSE the market if everyone tries to sell at once.
It seems as though we get stuck in the social level. I contend that the
social structure that allows the greatest amount of individual freedom
is by far the most dynamic. The social structure that can tolerate, even
integrate, the dynamic individual should be the ideal.
I do not advocate anarchy. Some government control is necessary and
right. We do have to live with each other on this planet.
The operation of the intellectual level depends on a stable social level
in the individual as well as in society - BUT - by inflicting too many
restrictions on the citzenry, I think you do as much to restrict the
evolution of society as you do if you were to impose unnecessarily
restrictive rules upon a child. The child/society/individual must have
room to grow, preferably within the bounds of a free society.
> Both my examples are examples where the innocent and normally harmless
> action of the individual has to be restricted, because the concerted
> effects of numerous individuals acting in the same way becomes harmful.
The duty of the individual is to resist the effort of society to
restrain him.
> In an essay on my web site at
> http://www.agri.huji.ac.il/~marder/Science_Philosophy/Causality.htm I
> discuss how the random movements of individual gas molecules result in a
> collective obedience to the Gas Laws.
> Similarly, the unrestricted actions of the individual should not be
> assessed only on the level of the individual, but also on the collective
> level. To come back to the recent discussion within the Lila Squad
> lists, the individual posts have been fine, the collective quality
> lacking. We share a collective responsibility for this.
We're still on the metaphorical plain.
> To fit Pirsig's MoQ into all this, his levels are a recognition that
> value can be judged on a number of different levels. I fully agree with
> him on this. Pirsig goes on to restrict this analysis to four specific
> types of levels. I can go along with this only as far as it is useful. I
> consider that in some cases, levels may be defined in different ways to
> facilitate the analysis of different types of problems. (IMO this
> happens unconsciously in almost any situation).
Formally, it's all in how you wield the knife. In everyday situations,
how you define(describe?) the levels depends upon the level you are
operating from.
> Now back to the passenger seat where I'll wait for a glimpse of the
> mountains.
Aw, hell. Let's ride.
drose
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:52 BST