From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Fri Dec 19 2003 - 20:56:49 GMT
Dear Matt K.,
You wrote 16 Dec 2003 18:11:52 -0600:
'Pragmatism and "post-modernism" have nothing to do with undermining an
ability to reach agreement.'
I'm still not so sure, but I can't pin it down.
Yes, "truth is a function of power", i.e. social level power games
'determine' (leaving some freedom) historically the (changing) basic
(usually abstract!) ideas that (together with non-verbal patterns of
behaviour) define groups (through maintenance of 'politically correctness'
on pain of exclusion). Intellectual discussion of 'truth' is possible, but
internal to those groups (within the limits of 'political correctness').
Competition between groups, overlapping of groups and growing diversity of
groups provide growing freedom to choose another group and thus (limited)
freedom from power-based-basic-truths, however. Power to exclude people from
discussions and more general from participation in groups becomes
increasingly a function of the strength of groups and their basic ideas and
behaviours in this competition and 'seeking niches' of a growing number of
groups. So partly power is also a function of (competitive strength of)
truths.
To 'get the social stuff done', we need to develop social patterns of value
(in the direction I described in 'economics of want and greed'). It requires
leading people and defining for them what they want in a way that
progressively enables them to define more of their own 'wants'. Defining
wants for others requires more and more 'intellectual stuff' being done in
the course of this social evolution. It's not 'first social stuff and then
intellectual stuff' (or vice versa), but both at the same time in a changing
balance. More concretely: in order to feed people and get them clothes and
education, you have to convince them somehow to do what you want them to do.
Convincing people requires increasing amounts of intellectual agreement in
the course of history and of people being increasingly able to define their
own wants. Intellectual agreement requires (or implies, if you prefer) a
shared philosophical vocabulary. Making that philosophical vocabulary
explicit can facilitate further intellectual agreement, but it can also make
people aware of 'wants being defined for them' when they are ready to define
them for themselves. In that last case groups split up and the diversity of
groups grows further.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Fri Dec 19 2003 - 22:27:39 GMT