[Ian]
> Trial and error yes, but trial using well informed
> (and well intentioned) strategies have to be better
than
> trials based on coin-tosses or dogmatic prejudices
surely ?
A coin-toss doesn't take into consideration the
choices our intellect deals with. In a coin-toss it
is heads or tails, so, yes a coin-toss doesn't reach
our intellectual decisions. Dogmatic prejudices are
not using the intellect we have. It is just robots
that use dogmatic prejudices.
[Ian]
> Particularly if the "trial" is a social experiment
where the downside
> risk hurts people ?
Hurting people is something the biological level
can do itself. Intellect can rise above the trail and
errors of this level. Yes, intellect may hurt people
still, but these intellectual errors can be modeled
first, instead of trailing something first without
modeling. That is probably one advantage of intellect
over biological level trail and errors.
[Ian]
> However yes, self-organising systems of life help us
> crawl up the improbable mountain. And again Yes, the
answer to my
> question is a process. Your "isness" is a "doing".
> Unless you suggesting a "free for all, and let's
> just see what evolves" as the best strategy, we are
still left
> with quality questions of what is good .... and
latching on to
> the good (the best so far), taking it forward,
without cramping the
> possibilities for further evolution
A "free for all" on the social or biological
level isn't using the intellectual level. What's a
"free for all" on the intellectual level? If it
testing one value on the intellectual without testing
this value with other intellectual values and putting
that value straight into the social and biological
levels, then that "free for all" is harmful. Where I
work, unfortunately, the intellectual level goes
straight into the social level without much of a
'comparison process' on the intellectual level. This
is a big complaint where I work. We are thrown into
our jobs and expected to deal with children, and yet,
we have NO idea, NO training as to what we are doing
and what's going on. We are told to just observe, and
then start making decisions. So many times we are
winging it, and then if we make a mistake, well, it's
our fault, but those in charge put all this
responsibility on people that are dealing with
situations that clearly we never, for the most part,
had experience in dealing with, aside from ever
observing or reading about before. This is where
trail and error is on the social level where social
experimentation is a "free for all", and yes people
are getting hurt.
[Ian]
> .... we've just shifted the question to features of
the process, rather > than any fixed "answer" to my
who question (my how question was
> always looking for process as the answer anyway)
Isn't the who 'We'? Isn't the who 'those in the
process'?
[Ian]
> Interestingly you have just rephrased my recurring
question.
> Assuming total freedom, anything goes anarchy, is
not the optimum
> answer, my question about what is the best form of
governance (of
> anything) is a matter of "What are the best
processes of governance".
> The question of judging "best" - the matter of
values - will just not
> go away ?
We are trailing and erroring now. This is a good
model, a model that can be practical and used whenever
we find it to be not a model anymore, but something we
will walk away from the MOQ.org and actually use. We
are making the decisions and churning them in our
heads now.
evening,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the
tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
