From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat May 29 2004 - 13:52:04 BST
Hi
I think the first big problem is that we seem to value
material possessions over cultural and intellectual ones.
We allow/encourage people to value material possessions to such a high
extent that they can place their individual material abundance
over the biological and intellectual lives of others. I think this is an
accident
of Capitalism, or rather of our failure to replace it. Corporations have
delivered fantastic productive powers but they advance these for profit
without concern for biological needs for all, intellectual needs and without
concern for the long term environment. Certain groups have done very
well out of this period of Capitalism and wish to retain its dominance, but
this dominance is producing conflict, inequality and the production of
'goods'
that have large negative effects on the highest level, i.e. the
intellectual.
What does a $50,000 watch do for evolution? What is the evolutionary value
of entertainment? What do unnecessarily long working hours do for our
intellectual and
biological well being? Any thoughts?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 2:56 AM
Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Evolution of Society.
> Hi MarkM, and all,
>
> MarkM, glad you're enjoying the Chomsky.
>
> I like your parallel of Asimov's laws of robotics in summarizing the
> MOQ. Here's what you wrote:
>
> 1. Static Quality may obey its own laws except where such laws would
> conflict with DQ.
> 2. Static Quality must respond to DQ except where such responses
> would restrict DQ.
> 3. Static Quality must protect its own existence as long as such
> protection does not conflict with the first or second law.
>
>
> msh says:
> My question, for anyone, is can the above formulation be integrated
> into my stab at defining a moral society? Would using the terms SQ
> and DQ in my definition make things clearer and more useful? Or not?
>
> Here's mine again:
>
> "Societal institutions that restrict or impede the free flow and
> interaction of ideas are immoral, especially if such ideas are
> critical of existing institutions. It is immoral for institutions to
> in any way restrict individual freedom to act and react in response
> to biological drives, or in response to other institutions, or in
> response to the free interchange of ideas, unless such activity
> threatens morally superior institutions or can be shown to eliminate
> or restrict such freedom for others."
>
>
> Thanks to all,
> Mark Steven Heyman
> --
> 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
>
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 : Sat May 29 2004 - 14:31:31 BST