From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jul 27 2004 - 10:42:24 BST
Hi Platt
Platt said:
Both DMB and Paul narrowly define success as fame and fortune.
Paul:
Not so, I suggested that fame and fortune are currently, in western
culture, the *dominant* measure of success, and highlighted that they
are social quality measurements. The reason I did this was to
demonstrate that your idea of individual success being a purely 4th
level goal is incorrect.
Platt said:
I doubt if they would apply that definition to themselves as
individuals, but rather use the term's primary meaning of "favorable or
desired outcome."
Paul:
That's irrelevant. Once again, I suggested that fame and fortune are
currently, in western culture, the *dominant* measure of success.
Therefore, when you say that individual success is the highest good you
may first need to point out that you are talking about success in the
sense of "achieving favourable and desired outcomes," and not
necessarily making money or becoming famous, and when you've done that
you might want to qualify this with "except if that desired outcome is
flying an aircraft into a skyscraper, torturing a child, running a scam,
shooting the president, selling crack........"
Or, to make things easier, you could say that there is a natural
evolutionary moral order of things, and we can categorise the behaviour
of individuals according to this framework to show that an individual
should not be free to achieve every desired outcome they can think of.
In other words, I think that when you wave the flag simply for
"individual success," you are right back in the soup and fundamentally
uprooting the structured morality of the MOQ.
Platt said:
Once the weakness of DMB's premise that success is a social pattern is
made clear, the rest of his critique of my position regarding the
individual level disintegrates into little more than an anti-Randian
rant.
Paul:
From my point of view, I was countering your claim that individual
success is a 4th level pattern by showing that this success occurs at
other levels. If there are narrow definitions being made, the idea that
the individual is a purely 4th level pattern tops them all.
Cheers
Paul
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 Jul 27 2004 - 11:33:59 BST