From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Sep 07 2004 - 14:09:09 BST
Dear Wim,
> You suggest:
> 1) 'social equality is a value judgment and ... value judgments ... will
> vary dramatically from individual to individual depending on life
> experiences' 2) 'those in authority would do well to treat their subjects
> equally else resentment of those who perceive themselves treated unfairly
> boils over into revolution. But, it seems that such resentment must be
> learned because so many people are perfectly willing to accept their lot in
> life.' 3) 'perhaps we can agree that in the Western World the notion of
> social equality is widespread due to Christian doctrine which preaches that
> we're all God's children and therefor equal in His eyes.'
>
> ad 1) Support for the idea that social equality is valuable varies between
> individuals (and groups of individuals) as participation in 4th level
> patterns of value requires a degree of choice. You have to 'learn' how to
> use specific symbols and patterns of symbols to participate in 4th level
> pat terns of value. (After having learned them, you don't need to be
> constantly aware of them. You only have to use them sometimes in order not
> to forget them.) Those choices (not necessarily very conscious choices) to
> participate in a specific 4th level pattern of value (e.g. this doctrine)
> is determined to some extent by individual and collective experience but is
> also to some extent a free choice (the space where DQ reigns).
>
> ad 2) Not only those in authority (2nd type leaders, those whose leadership
> is based on enforcement) do well to treat their followers to some extent
> equally (except that they have to make a difference between those
> supporting and those opposing their authority in order to stay in
> authority...). Leaders of all 4 types (see
> www.antenna.nl/wim.nusselder/schrijfsels/economics.htm chapter 4) have to
> champion some equality. E.g. a monopolistic producer of computer operation
> systems cannot afford to differentiate prices for the same product too much
> between customers with different purchasing power (the normal way of
> monopolists to maximize profit) or customers will start evading his
> monopoly.
>
> ad 3) This Christian doctrine may be a factor, but certainly not the only
> one. There are also Christian doctrines supporting social hierarchy...
> There must have been some 3rd level sq (some equality works to maintain
> groups) and DQ (selective use of Christian doctrines) involved too.
Am I correct to interpret your response as agreement in general with my
answers to your question of why the concept of "equality" arose?
Thanks.
Best,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Tue Sep 07 2004 - 14:23:40 BST