Comments below:
> Hi Platt,
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
[Steve quotes Pirsig]
> and Pirsig seems to agree as well...
> "My personal feeling is that this is how any further
> improvement of
> the world will be done: by individuals making
> Quality decisions and
> that's all. God, I don't want to have any more
> enthusiasm for big
> programs full of social planning for big masses of
> people that leave
> individual Quality out. These can be left alone for
> a while. There's
> a place for them but they've got to be built on a
> foundation of
> Quality within the individuals involved. We've had
> that individual
> Quality in the past, exploited it as a natural
> resource without
> knowing it, and now it's just about depleted.
> Everyone's just about
> out of gumption. And I think it's about time to
> return to the
> rebuilding of this American resource...individual
> worth. There are
> political reactionaries who've been saying something
> close to this
> for years. I'm not one of them, but to the extent
> they're talking
> about real individual worth and not just an excuse
> for giving more
> money to the rich, they're right. We do need a
> return to individual
> integrity, self-reliance and old-fashioned gumption.
> We really do. I
> hope that in this Chautauqua some directions have
> been pointed to."
> ZAMM part 4
[SA currently]
Yes, the individual worth related to gumption
would propel a good discussion into morals. Maybe we
get trapped in the level system so much, it seems to
throw us off-track from discussing what we really want
to get to. The level system works, but it also traps
and leads the discussion away from what we want to get
to. The individual worth, the value and moral loss
this culture involves itself with is depleting. Now,
how we want to label the individual on any level, I
say throw that labeling out and move on with the
discussion, as you two seem to be. Let's get into the
actual discussion, not labeling what the discussion is
about. This is a good start, but on specific issues,
I wonder where this will go.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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/
