Selma, Your points are well taken.
However, the basic building block of a group is the individual. The individual is more important than the group and the formation of a group, or community is for the betterment of the individual. (As I've said, an important part of the advancement of humanity is their gathering into communities.) But the community is a creation of individuals and is owned by individuals. Nowadays, we seem to reversed this and consider the community is more important then the individuals that compose it. With that I disagree. Harry ******************************************** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net ******************************************** -----Original Message----- From: Selma Singer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 1:42 PM To: Harry Pollard; 'Stephen Straker'; 'Ed Weick'; 'futurework' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: Hobbes I think the problem in this discussion is that we think about the relationship between the individual and the group differently, Harry. I am convinced that we must approach social issues from the position that the individual and the group are essential to each other's best development. That is, the individual cannot survive, and certainly cannot thrive without the group's interests being taken care of, and the group cannot survive unless the individual's interests are cared for and unless individual's are allowed to develop their best potential. Given that, to discuss self-interest in terms of just the individual, or to discuss social interest just in terms of the group doesn't make sense to me. I believe this is just one aspect of the fragmentation problem that is so much a part of western materialistic, mechanistic, linear thinking. Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Selma Singer'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Stephen Straker'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Ed Weick'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'futurework'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 4:11 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Re: Hobbes > Selma, > > I am not very keen about the Hobbesian Leviathan, but think more > about self-interest. > > If one always acts in one's self-interest, one is more likely to > survive. > > If one always acts against one's self-interest, one is less > likely to survive. > > We have survived. > > Think what is in our self-interest. > > Peace is in our self-interest. > > Community is in our self interest. > > Cooperation is in our self interest. > > Trade is in our self-interest. > > Friendship is in our self-interest. > > Don't equate self-interest with selfishness which includes a > disregard for others. Selfishness doesn't seem to be a survival > value. > > We have a tendency to treat observation subjectively. Thus the > "unlimited desires" assumption is thought to mean we are greedy. > It doesn't. And the "least exertion" principle is thought to mean > laziness. It doesn't. > > Thus with self-interest. It does not mean selfishness. > > Harry --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.557 / Virus Database: 349 - Release Date: 12/30/2003 _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
