From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue May 25 2004 - 23:55:49 BST
Hi Platt, David M, and all,
msh said:
I'm against any entity that projects its own power, for its own
purposes, at the expense of the freedom of others, using "freedom" in
the MOQish sense.
On 25 May 2004 at 12:18, Platt Holden wrote:
What do you mean by "freedom in the MOQish sense?"
msh says:
My understanding of the MOQ contains the idea that societal
institutions that restrict or impede the free flow and interaction of
ideas are immoral, especially if such ideas are critical of existing
institutions. It is immoral for societal institutions to in any way
restrict individual freedom to act and react in response to
biological drives, or in response to other societal institutions, or
in response to the free interchange of ideas, unless such activity
can be shown to eliminate or restrict such freedom for others.
ph:
So would you abandon the security council and rely on a democratic
vote of all nations regardless of size or form of government?
msh says:
Sure, in a world where all people had equal access to the free flow
and interchange of ideas, and were free as described above. In such
a world, if something like the UN was even necessary, you wouldn't
need a Security Council at all, I think. Just the International
Court of Justice, maybe, and the GA made up of representatives of all
nations, each possessing voting power in precise proportion to the
numerical population of his or her country.
Of course, that world isn't this world. In this world, a great and
simple start would be to change the UNSCR rules so that a single
permanent member veto isn't enough to block a resolution. This would
give the UN substantially more power in controlling rogue actions
such as the recent US invasion of Iraq. Not perfect, but a start.
msh said:
More generally, against any economic system that says it's morally ok
for a few people to have billions while billions have nothing. I
mean, think of the teleology here: There's just not enough stuff
for more than one person to own everything.
ph:
Don't understand your last two sentences. "Teleology" means belief in
an underlying purpose to natural evolution. What's the connection to
the following sentence about "just enough stuff?"
msh says:
You're using "teleology" in its strictest sense. Any good dictionary
will have alternate definitions, including something like
the use of design or purpose as an explanation of phenomena. If you
cut me a little poetic license, I'm suggesting that the purpose of
capitalism, the end toward which it is driving, is a world where one
person owns everything. My comment that "There's just not enough
stuff for more than one person to own everything" was meant to convey
the absurdity of this.
ph:
Also, I'm I correct to assume you are also against a free market
economy?
msh says:
Since no free market economy has every existed, this is difficult to
answer. The theoretical free market as described by Adam Smith (a
writer so-called capitalists are supposed to revere, but not read,
evidently) has some positive qualities, IMO. But I don't see any
reason to believe that this is the only way , or even the highest
quality way, of organizing a socio-economic system., if "highest
quality" means producing the best outcome for the most people.
> msh says:
> Not sure how I can be "against" the media.
ph:I
If you believe the U.S. media is largely a propaganda arm of
capitalism and the power elite, is it far fetched to think you might
be against it?
msh says:
Ok, I see. I believe the corporate/commercial media, whose goal is
to sell audiences to advertisers, cannot be relied upon for impartial
presentation and analysis of ideas which might threaten its profit-
making ability. Obviously. So, for example, the question of
whether or not public air waves should be used for the purpose of
generating private profit never comes up. Or if individual
automobiles are the most efficient and environmentally sound way to
transport large numbers of people. Or if private insurance plans are
the best way to provide medical care.
There are, fortunately, alternate, non-commercial sources of
information. Unfortunately, these are not nearly so easy to access.
That is to say, they are not pumped unceasingly into almost every
household, or available at every Safeway checkout, Borders, or
neighborhood news stand. Effort is required to access them; and
still more effort is required to analyze their content.
> msh said:
> One of the great things about a non-teleological, DQ driven,
> morality evolving metaphysics is that we don't have to envision an
> end, and can't anyway.
ph:
May I remind you to what Pirsig says about teleology in Lila:
"There is no quarrel whatsoever between the Metaphysics of Quality
and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Neither is there a quarrel
between the Metaphysics of Quality and the "teleological" theories
which insist that life has some purpose. What the Metaphysics of
Quality has done is unite these opposed doctrines within a larger
metaphysical structure that accommodates both of them without
contradiction." (Lila, 11)
msh says:
Not sure of your point here. Are you disagreeing with my use of the
phrase "non-teleological"? What I mean by this, with respect to the
MOQ, is that there is no end purpose which evolution is trying to
reach, that is, some point at which evolutionary perfection will have
been attained and evolution will stop. Thus the use of the word, if
it is a word, of "asymptotically" below.
> All we have to do is NOT IMPEDE the free flow and
> interaction of ideas and maximize individual freedom for the
> greatest number of people possible. Under these conditions, the
> morally perfect society will be approached asymptotically. At
least
> this is my understanding of the MOQ.
>
> Nevertheless, if you are really interested, I believe I can sketch
> some of the characteristics of a more moral socio-economic system
> than what we have now.
ph said:
Please do. Thanks.
msh says:
David Morley has also expressed an interest in this. I think it
would be a great topic: MOQ and The Moral Evolution of Society.
I think we'd need to agree on some basic principles, first, to keep
from wasting our time. For example: If a societal institution can be
shown to immorally restrict or impede individual freedom, that
institution must be modified or dismantled. Stuff like that...
Anyway, lemme think about it. Or we can start the thread and start
clarifying principles and terminology.
Thanks to all,
Mark Heyman
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 25 2004 - 23:53:09 BST