Hi Steve, > >[Platt] > >> > What other specific duties to other individuals do you find in the > >> > moral structure set forth in the MOQ? > > > >[Steve] > >> Society needs to maintain itself and intellect needs to support > >> society since it's existence depends on society. I think the MOQ then > >> suggests that we have to educate people to be able to perpetuate and > >> contribute to society since social roles require education. Also, > >> societies evolved because they helped biological man survive. Stronger > >> societies then do a better job than weaker societies at serving people's > >> biological needs, so a strong MOQ case can be made that it is in > >> society's interest to have structures that increase the health of it's > >> members. > > Platt: > >I agree, with the caveat about Dynamic Quality mentioned above. National > >government programs, whether about education or health, have not > >established and enviable record of success when compared to the private > >sector. But, the private sector also has shortcomings in not serving the > >needs of all citizens. Perhaps it is up to you and I others in this group > >to devise a Dynamic system that will address these problems. Surely there > >is as much brainpower here as in any other gathering. > > Steve: > It seems that we have agreement that a society needs to provide for the > security, education, and health of its members. Societies can be judged > based on how well they do these things as well as their openness to dynamic > improvement and support of the evolution of the intellectual level.
Yes, we agree. > Like you, I don't assume that these responsibilities of society equate to > responsibilities of government. (Note that these responsibilities of society > translate into the rights of its citizens and then back into duties of > citizens to use intellect to support social patterns that provide for these > things.) These responsibilities of society are also those of parents to > children, husbands and wives to one another, and probably every other social > role we can think of. Yes, we agree. > Though the two groups tend to vilify one another, the differences between > liberals and conservative are partly if not largely differences in how they > see the role of government in performing these social responsibilities > rather than whether these are indeed the responsibilities of societies. Yes, how can government wisely use its coercive powers without destroying the freedom necessary for intellect and Dynamic Quality to flourish?. > Both sides should give the other side credit for seeking to create a better > society based on the these responsibilities. The rode to hell is paved with good intentions. So I don't think giving credit gets us very far. The hard nut to crack is laying down the principles of a society based on an MOQ rational morality because . . . "in this culture there aren't any fundamental meanings of morality. There are only old traditional social and religious meanings and these don't have any real intellectual base. They're just traditions" (Lila, 7) I think this is the challenge Pirsig has left to us after giving us a solid foundation to build on. So I began by proposing that in tackling the problem we should acknowledge that it is immoral for politicians to promise benefits with other's people's money. My hope is that this group would suggest other directions based on MOQ morality that might prove of value. I look forward to your ideas. Regards, Platt 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/
