Hi Dan
Hi everyone
Dan:
One person cannot rule alone; they must forge powerful allies. I am not sure how you
can say new intellectual values don't oppose old ones... of course they do! Not only
must they oppose old social values, but new intellectual values must destroy them
entirely.
Richard
I do see your point, and it got me thinking about the word �oppose�. I do admit that
the intellects� opinions oppose those of societies, but the examples you give suggest
a willing opposition, as if the intellect goes out to oppose the society. I don�t
think this is true. My view is that the intellect ignores society, but I do concede
that the new rulings the intellect DO oppose society, but via a less confrontational
route than your language suggests. However, this could just be the way I interpret
what you say(?).
> Richard:
> Society still has some power as we are in a transitional period, in a few
>generations, there will be no society to hang me up by my thumbs, and since the
>intellect doesn�t stomp it just ignores, society will not be able to stop the
>process.
Dan:
Come on now, who's kidding who here? Society has all the power. And that is not going
to change in a few generations or a few hundred. It is an ever regenerating cycle...
new ideas arise, flourish while they may then pass away to make way for new ideas.
Society latches onto new ideas from time to time but there is a deep undercurrent that
WILL hang you by your thumbs if you get out of line (figuratively, perhaps, yet one
never knows).
Richard:
Society only has CERTAIN power. It has power over parts of the economy, it has power
at election time (well, it still has SOME power, it would seem that the intellectual
courts are stomping all over that too now!! :o) ) but aside from that, society has
very little power (at least compared to 50, 100, 200 years ago. The balance of power
is shifting from society to intellect (law courts, politics and trade) so while I
concede that society has SOME power, I seriously doubt it�s as much as you seem to
think.
Richard:
Question: Many of those on this group seem to think society and intellect are at war,
and intellect is trying to forcefully gain ground on society. If this is the case,
then since there are so many people in society, why aren�t they using their power?
Dan:
Well, it's not that intellect is trying gain ground... intellect opposes society in
any fashion. Evolutionary forces of value push intellect in an entirely different
direction.
Richard:
But this once again takes us back to the old debate of �Does intellect ACTIVELY seek a
stance that is in direct opposition of society?� If evolutionary forces ARE simply
pushing the two apart, I think it suggests the intellect opposes society via an
indirect route (which is what I�ve been saying all along � sorry, I know that�s after
the bell but had to get that one in :o) )
Dan:
MOQ states intellect is at war with society, not the politicians or lawyers.
Richard:
Are lawyers and politians part of society??? IMO they belong to the intellect as they
do not work for the good of society, they work for the good of the intellect! Or am I
misunderstanding what you mean?
Dan:
And again, intellect cares nothing about gaining ground on society. Intellect opposes
society.
Richard
Yes, but does it seek to oppose society? Are they really at war?
Dan:
[�] Should a criminal have access to education? I believe this moves up a ratchet leap
to conflicting social/intellect patterns of value. Society provides an education in
the hope of rehabilitating the criminal.
Richard:
Society provides at the bequest of the intellect. Who is in charge, the puppet or the
puppeteer??
Dan:
Personally I question why society should entitle a criminal with an education while
not providing one to all it's citizens, but perhaps that is just me.
Richard:
It DOES provide an education for the citizens it�s just the citizens use the
democratic right not to attend classes, not to do evening studies, not to further
themselves. The options are there, people just don�t use them!! What would society
say if people were FORCED to take up extra education classes as you seem to suggest
here?
In poor rural areas throughout the country here in the States, rich city folk have
been steadily moving in over the last two or three decades. Invariably the poorer
neighbors steal from them at first, but as time goes by the money the rich folk bring
in gradually becomes diffused, raising everyone's standards of living, and the
stealing stops. Wealth never stays in a vacuum. It spreads around.
Richard:
Oh come on Dan, you can�t be so niave as to believe that the spreading of wealth in
this way fights crime. I think the real process is that the rich city folk suddenly
discover the higher crime rate and start to complain, or stop moving whilst blaming
crime, so the mayors or governors of the town are suddenly faced with 2 options. 1,
do nothing and have all the tax paying, spending city folk leave or 2, concentrate on
crime prevention and deterents! It�s not that the spreading wealth cuts crime, it�s
that crime becomes a focus of the local government! IMO, of course!
> Richard:
how can a newly released criminal have the chance to lead a normal life if he has
$50,000 debt from his incarceration? Isn�t he more likely to reoffend in this case?
Dan:
Well I envisioned a pay as one goes plan... work release, chain gangs, etc.
Richard:
So in your view, you should not educate or train criminals, and at the end of their
sentence, you expect them to pay for their incarceration despite the fact that IF they
can get a job, it will be unskilled labour paying little, thus inviting the criminal
to reoffend simply to pay for his incarceration?
Dan:
I still do not see why society should give to a criminal that which it
doesn't give to every citizen.
Richard:
The citizens have more rights and opportunities, they simply CHOOSE not to use their
options, favouring spending nights in bars and restaurants on top of extra education.
You can show a fish where the river is, you can even give it means to get there, but
you can�t make it jump in, and you can�t make it drink. We have lots of opportunity
to better ourselves to a far greater extent than criminals ever will, we�re just too
lazy to do anything (speaking from societies point of view of course, I know the
people on this list aren�t lazy!)
> Richard:
> What if they don�t follow them because they have no choice not to? Because they
>don�t understand why they do wrong? Sense of decency is only a good fundament if you
>assume everyone has one. What if there are medical reasons for a lack of this sense?
> Lock them up and throw away the key just because they are Ill?
Dan:
In that case it seems we are now addressing inorganic/biological level function and no
longer biological/social function and it would fall to society to care for these
individuals.
Richard:
But before society can care for them, they need to be accessed within prison, and so
far, you have been arguing that they should not be allowed access to personal help.
> Richard:
> Assaults and that kind of thing I agree with you on the stupidity thing. But why do
>people steal? Is the driving force of this poverty or stupidity? Is poverty
>treatable?
Dan:
And is being stupid a treatable condition? We seem to be falling into the nurture vs
nature argument here...
Richard:
Stupid is not necessarily a straight sourse of crime. There are lots of stupid people
out there that don�t commit crimes so where�s the difference? Perhaps it�s alcohol?
Here in the UK, a large number of personal assaults are committed by people under the
effects of alcohol. Stupid people don�t commit crimes BECAUSE they are stupid, they
commit them because they are stupid and poor, or stupid and drunk etc. I don�t think
you need to treat stupidity, you need to tackle the other driving problems of crime.
Dan:
in the States the revenge factor overrides. Take Ted Bundy, for instance. Rather than
studying this man to try and determine why he was like he was, society executed him
summarily. Richard Speck... another example, only he was left to his own recourses in
prison where he quote "had the time of my life." Granted, these men are extreme cases,
but in neither case was society served in the best possible way; by performing
psychological studies perhaps some commonality could be derived and a rehabilitation
program that really works may have resulted? Who can say?
Richard:
Better to try than to assume you�re going to fail!
> Richard:
> I�m surprised you said this, Dan. How is viewing ourselves as animals a step down?
Dan:
Daniel Dennett mentions the Hutterites in his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and it
seems to me their culture is just what you are advocating. The Hutterites live in
colonies which split in half when they reach a certain size, one half staying and the
other half leaving and creating a new colony.
Dan:
Dennett writes:
"Wilson and Sober are right to present the Hutterite ideals as the essence of an
organismic organization, but the big difference is that for people -- unlike the cells
in our bodies, or the bees in a colony -- there is always the option of opting out.
And that, I would thinnk, is the last thing we want to destroy in our social
engineering. The Hutterites disagree, apparently, and so, I gather, do the hosts of
many non-Western memes. Do you *like* the idea of turning ourselves and our children
into slaves to the 'summum bonum' of our group? This is the direction the Hutterites
have always been headed..." (Darwin's Dangerous Idea, pg. 474)
Hope that helps you see where I'm coming from.
Richard:
It certainly does, I�ve never seen that before, it�s interesting! Of course, I
completely agree with the hutterites! question: are the majority of us not already
slaves to our bank balances, and what the media presents as �the perfect world� with
it�s big, well decorated houses, it�s cobbled drive ways and 4x4 off road vehicles
etc.? I think We just THINK we�re free, those that reject the ideal, are usually
considered �insane� and either locked up or put out of harms way.
Dan:
It is a misunderstanding to say Darwin replaced God with evolution. Just asking, but
have you read Darwin's "The Origins of Species"?
Richard:
I haven�t read it so, perhaps I am misunderstanding the few quotes and representations
of Darwin�s work that I have heard. I will say in my defense though, that even if
Darwin never SAID evolution moved us away from the idea of devine creation, I think it
is implied. I.E. it�s hard to imagine how God could have created a race that evolved
over millions of years.
Kind regards
Richard
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
