Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Evolution of Society.

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Fri Jul 09 2004 - 08:50:57 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise"

    Dear Platt,

    This is probably my last MD post before leaving for holiday and until I have
    waded through the hundreds of e-mails I will find when I return.

    You wrote 21 Jun 2004 15:01:25 -0400:
    'Have I denied the possibility of improving on Pirsig's ideas?'

    Yes, sort of:
    You wrote 30 Mar 2004 09:04:20 -0500:
    'My own opinions happen to coincide with Pirsig's on most issues. My reasons
    are the same as Pirsig's.'
    I replied:
    'Also your opinions about philosophy and philosophology? What is your
    opinion about someone who chooses a favourite author and copies/rephrases
    his ideas without adding many news?'
    You replied 3 Apr 2004 11:43:07 -0500:
    'My ego, large as it is, will not permit me to believe I'm really capable of
    creating any new philosophies or philosophical ideas. Nor do I think many
    are. I agree with whoever said, "All philosophy is a footnote to
    Plato." Only one exception I can think of: Pirsig.'

    I persisted with:
    'Isn't every human being capable of perceiving or adjusting to Dynamic
    Quality? ... If someone is capable of understanding and expressing
    philosophies, doesn't perceiving and adjusting to DQ (let alone pursuing
    DQ...) imply adding new ideas to these philosophies?'
    You replied 4 Apr 2004 17:06:38 -0400:
    'Yes, that's the theory. Unfortunately, either I'm not very responsive to DQ
    or DQ has passed me by. I have no philosophical ideas to offer other than 1)
    Sometimes take a chance and do nothing because there's no cost and always
    the possibility of a beneficial outcome, and 2) Create works that will be
    admired for their beauty. As you can see, nothing new there. Sorry to
    disappoint.'

    So we have at least uncovered that you disagree with Pirsig on the point of
    every human being being capable of pursuing DQ. (-;

    You continued with:
    'I don't know what you mean by "collective work" [in my "From the very
    beginning homo sapiens -being a social animal- needed collective work to
    produce the food, shelter & clothing it needed for its survival"] other than
    individuals at work.'

    Two people co-operating in some social system can produce more food,
    shelter, clothing etc. than two Robinson Crusoe's. Dependence for buying
    some of your requirements on markets because you have specialized in
    producing others is also a social system of co-operation and collective work
    in that sense.

    Thanks for the source of your statistics supporting your claim that average
    middle-class Swedes have a lower household income than average
    African-Americans in the USA. I trust you enough not to look them up. Do you
    agree that household income is not a good measure of standard of living if
    the degree to which collective services meet part of one's wants differs
    compared to Gross National Product (= Gross National Income) per capita and
    Human Development Index?

    You ended with:
    'You're right. [A smaller role for nations and a larger one for
    supra-national (but democratic) institutions
    would] Not [be an important criterion for change to the better of the global
    system] for me.] Nor would it appear to many Europeans if the recent low
    vote for member of the European Union parliament is any indication. Could it
    be that there's a genetic disposition to favor one's own group? :-)'

    Low numbers of voters in European elections largely reflects the fact that
    almost all MEP's seem to be of the opinion that the EU should be more
    important (i.e. that there should be more EU regulations) and are not able
    to make important differences of opinion between them visible to the public
    at large, partly for lack of a European language and public debate. There
    simply doesn't appear enough to choose between.

    Sure, there is a genetic disposition to favour one's own group. That's what
    the 3rd level and even more the 4th level free us from (to an extent limited
    by the need to keep biological patterns of value functioning). Moral
    evolution at the 3rd and 4th levels are going in the direction of enlarging
    what people experience as 'own group' and of introducing additional
    principles to 'us vs. them' for guiding social behaviour.

    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 Jul 09 2004 - 09:26:44 BST