[MD] Modern American Humanism and MOQ

[John Carl]

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, <craigerb at comcast.net> 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