Craig, It looks like I'm lined up antagonistically here against you. Goodie! A worthy and noble opponent at last, I've been longing for such.
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:48 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > [American Humanism Manifesto] > *Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and > rational analysis.* > . > > > > I can't see how anyone could disagree with this, > except a thorough-going skeptic. > Personally, I'll take the skeptic label. I'll take thorough-going skepticism any day of the week. It's the best and deepest stance to take. BA Wallace just reiterated that very point in a video Marsha posted recently, and I agree completely. One reason I really appreciate both Royce and Pirsig, is they build their systems very logically upon a deep questioning that examines all. The alternative is a shallow, feel-good philosophy that appeals to those who don't want to examine their assumptions very deeply, but just take as a starting point stuff they have already been programmed to think and feel. Humanists, I call them. If such a stance as you've outlined was satisfactory, Phaedrus would never have given up on science and never written that book. We are here, because that's an unsatisfactory formulation upon which to base the evolutionary direction of society. Craig: > *Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary > change.* > > > > . > This accords with the MoQ view that humans are distinguished by their place > in the evolutionary chain. > John: That humans are part of nature is indisputable, from any perspective. "Unguided" is mocked by Pirsig in Lila. If evolution was unguided, then how did molecules become chemistry professors? Craig: > *Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by > experience.* > > . > For the MoQ, this statement would be true of HUMAN ethical values. > Values at other levels would be relative to them. > > John: A specious point, since according to Humanism there really are no values outside of human needs and desires. The arrogant view that nature is just a resource base for human need. The Indians encountered a variant of this idea and were aghast. Some of us still are. Craig: *Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of > humane ideals.* > . > This accords with the MoQ's emphasis on the centrality of > (high quality) values. > John: A little Schopenhauerean Pessimism would help here on your "life's fulfillment" plans but in practical experience, the way your formula instantiates is through a political process, manipulated by the technocracy which defines "humane ideals" in such ways as to increase power at the top. It all sounds so good and lofty on the drawing board. How come in actual practice it always sucks? Craig: > . > *Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.* > > . > This accords well with the MoQ's view that the intellectual > level evolves from the social level. > . > John: Well, I'm not so sure that that does accord with the MoQ - which seems to over-emphasize individualism in my view, but I do have to agree that it accords with my personal emphasis upon the centrality of sociality to human affairs. However, I'd point out that other animals are also "social by nature" and plainly so. And an ugly aspect of humanism is that it emphasizes the importance and value of human society, often at the expense of other animal society. But this is ultimately self-defeating because humanity's environmental context is dependent upon proper relationships with these non-human beings. This is one reason Eherenfeld, and I, see Humanism as ultimately foolish and self-defeating. Craig: > *Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.* > > . > This accords well with the value of free exchange: we are both better off > when I exhange with you what I have that you value for what > you have that I value. > John: Sounds an awful lot like some dang communistic manifesto to me. Thanks, but I think I'll maximize my individual happiness the old fashioned way. A day at a time and working to benefit my family. Society can go jump in a lake. Society would rather watch Wheel of Fortune. I'm not a big fan of society, why should I work to benefit something I don't like? Thanks Craig, for the opportunity. I'm looking forward to your response. John 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/md/archives.html
