[MD] for Ham, Arlo interjects

[David M]

> [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/
>