Hello everyone
Richard Edgar wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> Dan
> Thanks for forwarding your mail to me, I found your reply extremely interesting and thought provoking, I just hope I can do the same in this reply!
>
> Dan Glover wrote:
> >
> > Be that as it may, the role of individual vs. society is very complex yet summed up simply in the MOQ as a Dynamic evolutionary advance from biological level functions. Intellect, on the other hand, is a Dynamic evolutionary advance from social functions. So it is biology (our senses) which allows us to perform evaluations of situations giving rise to social law, which spells out very concretely what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms. Finally, intellect allows the individual to come along and say, > hey, this isn't right.
> Richard:
> I think I agree with you from an absolute point of view, but am interested to look at this in more detail, I.E how the transition takes place from a social law to an intellectual law. Is it simply that the intellect looks at the old social law and says “Hey, this isn’t right” or is it that the intellect looks back at the offence that has been committed and says “Here’s another way of looking at it”? It may seem a mute point but I don’t think it is, I think this digs right down to the depth of whether the intellect ignores society and makes its own mind up (poor choice of words, but I hope you see my point) about a situation or whether intellect gains evolutionary ground by stomping all over societies views.
> I am interested in what you think about this.
Hi Richard
It would seem to depend on the situation. Letting intellectuals run
loose is very dangerous for a society and so in totalitarian regimes
they are often times locked away or exiled. So it's not that intellect
ignores society so much as it opposes it. In some Native American tribes
when certain individuals felt s/he had been wronged in some fashion they
would proceed to do everything backwards for a socially prescribed
period of time. Phaedrus calls them contrarians. Contrarians are opposed
to ANY static patterns. The Zuni brujo liked to get drunk and peep in
people's windows (does that remind you of one of our presidential
candidates here in the States, or what?).
It would seem the only way to gain evolutionary ground is for the
intellect to stomp all over society, as you put it. Yet first, do no
harm. For society may just hang you by your thumbs!
> Dan:
> We have police and soldiers to deal with moral conflicts arising between the biological/social levels, which is how assault is seen in the MOQ. As far as individuals being treated equally, surely you aren't serious. And I don't know how it is in other countries but here in the States once a felony conviction is on ones record it stays there. But that is perhaps beside the point.
> Richard:
> I think it is beside the point but maybe I should clarify what I mean. From the point > of view of a record, I agree that it should show, you’re right about that. I was
> thinking more about environmental standards. A criminal should be entitled to a
> healthy living environment even if that environment is provided by the state. I.E
> clean cell, nourishing food, some stimuli, access to education, access to exercise and > others and of course, the absence of torture!
Dan:
But can prisons really be a healthy living environment and also deter
crime in
the way they are meant to? Why shouldn't society demand that a criminal
pay for their own upkeep? Why should being a criminal entitle one to
anything at all? Rather all citizens in a society are entitled with
certain rights as long as they follow the rules of that society. As you
say though, there is a fundamental sense of decency also involved here;
karma, if you will.
> Dan:
> Maybe in some Pollyannish imaginary world rehabilitation works, but that is only because the prisoner has finally come to understand that s/he had damned well better do exactly what they're told or they will never get out (remember Phaedrus' very astute insight in the insane asylum?)
> Richard:
> I do remember Phaedrus’ insight but I don’t think it deserves a place here.
> Rehabilitation doesn’t work at present as we, as a species are only beginning to
> understand how the mind works. Until we fully understand this we can’t possibly hope > to treat all the illnesses and conditions that are responsible for criminal behaviour. > Do you think we should stop trying simply because we haven’t got it right yet? Once > we get the methods sorted out, there is no reason why rehabilitation won’t work, more > insight is needed in the area, and that isn’t going to happen overnight.
Dan:
Unsure in what context you're using "mind" here. If you mean mind as
brain then we are not on the same page, so to speak. I also question
whether
most crimes are inherently due to illness or any treatable conditions.
Perhaps a percentage. It seems to me many crimes are a case of
just plain stupidity. As far as stopping the rehabilitation efforts, I
did not know any had started yet!
> Richard:
> As an aside, do you think that most of societies problems with criminals come about
> from the perception of a soul. A soul is considered by most western religions to be a > never changing thing, so of course wrong doers will never change. Perhaps if this
> view was changed to the more acceptable view of us being no more than animals that
> respond to the stimuli we receive then societies perception of others would move on
> leaps and bounds? I am interested in your view on this.
Dan:
It seems to me that people don't change for we who "know" them will not
allow them to
change. Carl Jung used the term archetype, which has religious
connotations as you suggest. I brushed against this in the discussion
with Roger (the image of self/non self) with the unspoken assumption
religion
touches us all to varying degrees; "an unchanging center" to any
individual; a soul if you will. I would say your suggestion of society's
view changing to one of seeing humans as being no more than animals is
perhaps a
ratchet leap down and not up, resulting in a "Brave New World" of some
sorts or another. Yet we really should somehow stop viewing humans as
separate and apart from the rest of Universe.
>
> > Isn't derived experience redundant though? For certainly an experience must be
> > derived in order to qualify as experience. A dream not remembered is not an
> > experience yet it is still a dream. The cells in our bodies constantly replacing
> > themselves are not experienced yet they continue replacing themselves.
>
> Maybe I am once again guilty of not making a clear case as I don’t think you have
> understood the point I was trying to make – either that or I haven’t understood your
> response! :o)
> I was trying to highlight the cases where the person thinking about a situation hasn’t > actually experienced that which he is being asked to think about, but is trying to
> gain an accurate view of it. Take for instance a person being asked to pass down
> punishment on a convicted criminal. In decided what sentence to pass, the judge must > take into account the distress of the victim or victims, the motive for the attack,
> the ferocity etc. the judge was not involved yet he is being asked to understand the > experience without actually being there. This is derived experience: an understanding > of a situation gained from pure thought on the factors involved without having
> personally experienced them.
>
> As a little experiment, think about the processes involved in your cells replacing
> them selves, try concentrating on a few of them, you can almost feel them go through
> the processes you are thinking about. What you are thinking about is not actually
> happening, so how do you explain what you experience? This is an example of derived
> experience. A feeling through thought with no physical stimuli as initiator.
Dan:
Well, first of all I am not sure how to explain anything I experience.
There are moments when I am completely agape at even finding myself
here. But I'm sure you've heard of visual imagery; why does it work? We
are continually deriving experience from what we know to be. When we
experience anything we have to derive what it was we experienced before
it becomes an experience. Perhaps we could say perception is a Dynamic
event while conception is static. Only that which we conceive of becomes
experience. So the judge, in his/her being told by eye witnesses what
occurred, is relying on their
conceptions of the events to build his/her own perception of the crime.
That
is how we experience reality, all the time. Just as I imagine my cells
rebuilding themselves and call that an experience even though I really
can't experience it.
Perception is such that several people may witness an event and yet in
describing the same event all come up with different accounts of just
what was witnessed. Each witness builds a conception of the event from
their own unique life experiences.
>
> Thanks for replying Dan, I hope my continued argument of the law isn’t becoming tedious, I just find it a highly motivating area to think about!
Not at all! Thank you for your comments as well.
Dan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:51 BST