From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 22:22:07 BST
On 26 May 2004 at 21:47, Wim Nusselder wrote:
Let me assure you (as I did Platt before) that 'America bashing' is
not my intention. If it were I would not have been so shocked by the
statistic that 59% of the American population compared to 2,5% of the
Dutch population believes Revelations to be a reliable prediction of
the future.
msh says:
Wim, please don't over-personalize my remark. Perhaps "America-
bashing" was a bad choice of words on my part. My point is more
about the old activist phrase: "Think globally; act locally." I,
being an American, am more able to directly influence the activities
of my government, so that is the focus of my criticism. American
policy is carried out in my name, with my tax dollars, and, unless I
object and object loudly, with my tacit approval. It's a matter of
where and how my efforts will be most fruitful. I think the same
applies to non-Americans and their governments. That's all.
wim said:
I think it exaggerates the difference, but I still think
that Americans may hold more non-rational beliefs than Dutch
msh says:
You may very well be right. But, as I believe we agreed in one of
our previous exchanges, the influence that non-rational belief
holding Americans have on American foreign policy is negligible, if
not nil. The very rational people behind American policy are far
more dangerous and, therefore, warrant far more attention, IMO.
And let me add, I am in no way trying to discourage you from being
critical of American policy. In fact, criticism from a non-American
perspective can give me a broader understanding of my own positions,
and is therefore welcome. I just think you're putting too much
emphasis on the religious fundamentalism angle.
win said:
From a Dutch perspective the American habit of concentrating on
personal freedom is misleading. Freedom is essentially negative. DQ
not only frees from static patterns of value, it also creates new
ones; its leads on in a specific direction. The goal may not be
fixed, but the direction of 'moral evolution of society' should have
more substance than just 'more freedom'. In a discussion on what it
means if a patterns has 'higher quality' in December 2001 and January
2002 terms like 'stability', 'versatility' and 'harmony' where
mentioned. Maybe this is something to explore further in the 'MOQ and
The Moral Evolution of Society' thread.
msh says:
Not sure I understand the "freedom is negative" part. But I think
you're right in saying that this will be better explored in the 'MOQ
and The Moral Evolution of Society', thread which David Morley has
already started. I hope to jump in later today or tonight, in
response to his questions there, and to may get on the table a rough
idea of how the MOQ might be used to evaluate "societal morality" in
a practical sense. I look forward to your participation there.
Your friend,
Mark
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
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 : Wed May 26 2004 - 22:19:38 BST