> [Arlo] > I don't see how anything I've said would lend support to a dictatorial > regime. > Nor do I see how anything I've said would lend justification to human > beings > being sacrificed to "social ends". I neither see "society" as the Great > Enemy > or as a Higher Power. This way of thinking, I say, comes right out of the > misunderstanding (as you've said) about the dialectical necessity of > interplay > between patterns on any given level.
Hi Arlo Please read more carefully, I am asking if your views fail to offer protection from these dangers? Perhaps we need to have a better grasp of the value of diversity that each individual offers (my meaning being given to individuals as a source of DQ or perhaps a portal?). Clearly what some individuals can bring into actuality is very great, take Mozart or Gandhi for examples. David M > > I do think there is little doubt that maximizing evolutionary potential is > a > balance of static and dynamic forces. Too much static, stagnation. Too > much > dynamic, chaos. > > I agree with Pirsig, that a person, the "self", is a collection of ideas, > and > ideas take moral weight over the continuity of any specific social > pattern. But > the "self" is only one such intellectual pattern. It was immoral for the > Church > to suppress the finding that the earth revolved around the sun for the > same > reason it was immoral for the USSR to imprison dissenters. (By the way, > this > also supports the state's right to imprison individuals whose threat comes > from > below, on the biological level, like murder and rapists). > > [Platt] > How would you see such error being avoided in future? > > [Arlo] > By a clear articulation of the affordances and constraints mandated by the > mind-as-social, and the need for static and dynamic forces to be in > resonance. > A tall order these days, to be sure. > > [DM] > I think that there are clear benefits to valuing individuals? Perhaps as > sources of high level DQ. > > [Arlo] > "Individuals" are no the "source of DQ". The self, as an intellectual > pattern, > is capable of responding too DQ within the affordances and constraints of > the > intellectual level, and as such is a locus of evolutionary movement of > these > patterns. And I think there is nothing wrong with proclaiming the > pragmatic > value of "having a self", I just think we need to be clear that that's > what we > are doing. > > > 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/ > 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/
