From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Wed Oct 22 2003 - 17:10:10 BST
Wim and Platt,
Wim said,
"Societies are held together by social patterns of value, not by intellectual patterns of value. Social patterns of value produce predictable behaviour. Any intellectual pattern of value (e.g. repetitive expression of a specific idea) is dangerous to social patterns of value, because it motivates people to behave differently than before, to break the social pattern."
I think I agree with this. All intellectual ideas are dangerous to social values and patterns. But some more dangerous than others and Platt and I might disagree about which social values should be preserved and which intellectual ideas might replace them.
Wim: "The idea that individuals have rights to freedom (which Andy suspects Platt 20 Oct 2003 23:58:07 +0000 of not respecting enough) is a clear case. You can forget about any predictable behaviour and any society if people would act too much upon that idea. We're lucky that even in a so-called 'free society' people's behaviour is only marginally changed by motivated actions."
The idea that individuals have rights to freedom is certainly a value that should be preserved. Platt and I agree with this. We disagree on how these rights should be preserved. But, I think I know what you are saying here. I just am not sure what the implications are. What we don't want is for social patterns to be changed by motivated actions of Nazis. But we might also not want social patterns to be changed by the motivated actions of a minority group of neoconservative Americans led by "The Prospects for a New American Century." It might have been better if the motivated actions of the Peace movement who made massive demonstrations before the outbreak of the latest Iraqi war were able to do better than marginal change. Or perhaps we would be lucky if the motivated actions of Jacques Derrida and Jeurgen Habermas, two European intellectuals, call upon the European nations to adopt a common foriegn policy to counter the "pax Americana" military imperialistic influence around the world would do bette
r than marginally influencing social patterns. Sometimes we might be lucky that there is only marginal change at motivated actions and sometimes the contingency of an electoral prospect somewhere in the world might lead to the unlucky result of the motivated actions of certain ideas to be put into practice creating much more than marginal change in social patterns. Some intellectuals might call "the unilateral arrogance of the Bush Administration a contingent misfortune--neither inevitable nor expressive of something deeply embedded, and irredeemable, in American culture and Society" (Rorty "Dissent Fall 2003). Although Rorty feels it isn't irredeemable, many of the damages caused to Americans and others around the world by this "contingent misfortune" are. In that sense I think we are unlucky.
Wim:"Most of it is still 'follow-the-leader' type of unmotivated behaviour, the
behaviour that builds and maintains society. For social patterns of value
(as I understand them) it is hardly relevant whether people adhere to
libertarianism or to fascism."
For social patterns of value, I might agree in so far as we can categorize all political and economical sytems under this heading. But for individuals living within these societies, I think it is relevant what political system, ideologies, or social structure people adhere to. And I think moral progress is the result of the motivated actions of certain individuals to create better systems under which people can adhere to.
Andy
> Dear Andy, Platt & others involved in this thread,
>
> Platt considers (19 Oct 2003 14:57:52 -0400) 'Rorty's theory of truth (what
> you can get away with) ... socially dangerous', i.e. (19 Oct 2003
> 09:06:41 -0400) 'dangerous to a free society because without confidence in
> the concept of truth (and it's companion, logic), the public is disarmed
> against lies'.
>
> Andy is (20 Oct 2003 23:58:07 +0000) troubled by 'also consider[ing] some
> people's ideas dangerous' or rather by calling himself a pacifist and
> nevertheless 'feel[ing] that society would be better off if certain
> individuals who held dangerous ideas would come to meet sudden and tragic
> ends'.
>
> I'm doubting both the tenability of Platt's position and the necessity of
> Andy's troubles. If the social level and the intellectual level are
> discrete, how can an intellectual pattern of value (e.g. a theory of truth
> or other 'dangerous ideas') then be 'socially dangerous'? Will killing
> individuals really kill the 'dangerous ideas'? Are ideas that are countered
> by force (instead of by persuasion, as advocated by Platt 21 Oct 2003
> 11:52:32 -0400) not usually strengthened rather than killed (e.g. by the
> 'martyr-effect')?
>
> Societies are held together by social patterns of value, not by intellectual
> patterns of value. Social patterns of value produce predictable behaviour.
> Any intellectual pattern of value (e.g. repetitive expression of a specific
> idea) is dangerous to social patterns of value, because it motivates people
> to behave differently than before, to break the social pattern.
>
> The idea that individuals have rights to freedom (which Andy suspects Platt
> 20 Oct 2003 23:58:07 +0000 of not respecting enough) is a clear case. You
> can forget about any predictable behaviour and any society if people would
> act too much upon that idea. We're lucky that even in a so-called 'free
> society' people's behaviour is only marginally changed by motivated actions.
> Most of it is still 'follow-the-leader' type of unmotivated behaviour, the
> behaviour that builds and maintains society. For social patterns of value
> (as I understand them) it is hardly relevant whether people adhere to
> libertarianism or to fascism.
> (And this social predictable behaviour only marginally changes the
> instinctive biologically patterned behaviour that builds and maintains
> species. But that is another subject.)
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Wed Oct 22 2003 - 17:12:51 BST