Dear Roger,
> ROGER RESPONDS TO BOBBY, ANDREAS,
> MARCO, JONATHAN, HORSE and DAN
> BY USING MARCO's COMPREHENSIVE POST
> FROM OCT 19TH. (With PS to Marco's Sunday Post)
I'm glad my post is comprehensive... as my first problem is to write
comprehensible posts! :-)
However, time is a tyrant, so I can't answer to all your good observations.
Just few things.
Firstly, a question: Did you miss these rows?
MARCO (TO ANDREAS):
> I'd like to express a little warning
> here: we must not equate the market to the EVIL itself,
> and fall in a communist-like trap. Let's not forget how many
> advantages we gained. The free market is the evil when it deals
> with arts, human rights, education, philosophy, religion,
> science.... in one word, with all what's intellectual.
> At the social level, it's a great pattern of value. The MOQ
> tells us it's moral to control the level below, while it's impossible
> to destroy it. The free market is good for the society to dominate
> the biological level, and it would be a mistake to eliminate it.
Let's not forget what we gained... my posts were written under this premise.
The problem is that you (as many Americans) are living a sort of
intoxication for all the goods you gained. Maybe from my
European-but-quasi-African point of view I see many things in a diverse way.
> ROGER:
> Such little faith in DQ! I look around at the history of the
> universe/biology/society/science and see a clear advance toward
> complexity, freedom, adaptability, variety and choice.
Oh no! I have a great faith in DQ. Of course new economic genres will
surface. But when? Do you think we just have to stand still and wait? For
what I know, human beings can be very good vehicles for the DQ=>SQ process.
Isn't it a sort of mission?
The process of advance towards complexity you mention is not linear in
times, it proceeds up and down. You see, when the Roman empire was the only
developed nation in Europe, with no economic competitor, it died. They were
at the same point of the England of the XV century, but why the Romans did
not create the industrial revolution?
It's a mystery only if you don't use a moq view. They did not need it: no
competitor, low necessity of dynamism. (By the way, this is the same
principle that is at the base of the "anti trust" laws).
All the advancements you mention in your post were granted during a strong
competition against developed totalitarianisms. But today there are no
competitors left. Can you exclude the advent of a new Middle Age?
Ok, I don't want to be a "catastrophist". I'm also optimistic, but in the
"active" sense that we CAN do something.
ROGER:
> and it is spreading at an increasingly fast pace to 'third world'
> countries. (Which by the way, are virtually the equivalent of where
> today's modern economies were before evolving the social solutions of
> democracy, plurocracy, free property rights, etc, etc.)
>
I've been to Africa one year ago.... mostly in touristy places, you know,
but I've been also among the population which has nothing to do with
tourists. Yes, from an objective and scientific point of view, they are
slowly increasing their social conditions, but... I would like to be a
Dusenberry to explain to all my friends their life. I just can say: don't
trust the TV.
ROGER:
> You seem to suggest that the creeping of western economic/social
> solutions is both bad and not happening fast enough.... which is it?
> (My,my, aren't I dualistic today! ;^))
I simply would like to see a fast development of their economic situation,
with more respect for their culture, their environment, their past. My words
sound so schizoid to those that can't well distinguish social and
intellectual values. Please, reread my words above: "The free market is the
evil when it deals with arts, human rights, education, philosophy, religion,
science...."
However, after few lines, on the example of the soccer balls, we agree:
ROGER:
> The Free enterprise system needs checks and balances too! So in the
> end, we agree.
[...]
> Agreed. We should not force our solutions on them. They've seen
> cheeseburgers though, so I guess they can choose their own path.
> Over the long haul my guess is they will.
> I hope some reject the Western model altogether.
> You're right, diversity is good.
oh happy end! :-)
But what are these "checks and balances?". And who will preserve diversity?
IMO, intellectual patterns, created with the purpose to control and dominate
the social. And this is all what I'm asking for! ARE OUR DEMOCRACIES, IN
THIS NEW SITUATION WITHOUT COMPETITORS, ABLE TO CREATE CHECKS AND BALANCES
TO CONTROL THE MARKET INTRUSIVENESS ON CULTURE AND TO PRESERVE CULTURAL
DIVERSITY?
Round and round we go...
ROGER:
> I think the intellectual level is doing pretty good. It may only be
evolved
> to the level of a young teenager, but it is certainly shaping up
well....zits
> and all!
>
Teenager? I think it's still sucking the milk (money) from mum Society!
However the idea of teenager is better than the Bo's idea of a mature
intellect that is already able to develop new levels.... (Hi BO, I learnt
from you how to take every occasion! :-)
> MARCO:
> But the question was not about a working system. It was about
> a moral (in moq terms) system. IMO a moral system must have
> of course dynamism, more intellectually than socially.
>
> ROGER:
> A system that won't work doesn't exactly qualify as moral either.
Of course a system must work. It's a necessary condition, but not
sufficient...
ROGER:
> I already addressed your more dynamic issue above, but to clarify,
> I would suggest that the most dynamic model is currently winning.
> Variations will blossom out of this, and we will continue to learn
> from those that reject the model altogether.
> Your argument seems to be that the only critical element of
> variation is between models, not within models.
I hope it's clear now that IMO competition between models is necessary for
the advancements within models. With no alternative models to stimulate
advancements, there is the strong risk of a step back to the preceding
situation.
ROGER:
> We don't need a better intellectual solution to
> society, we need good society upon which to establish
> intellectual advance.
Isn't the "need of a good society... " exactly the need of "better
intellectual solution to society?". Q-society, as every level, has two main
purposes: the first, directed below, is to solve biologic needs. The second,
directed above, is to evolve up to be able to create a new level.
The "good society" I'm longing must be enforced on this second point.
> Intellectual advance is
> science, math, knowledge, technology etc.
And human rights? And Arts? IMO science and technology are intellectual
products driven by social needs. Q-society created Q-intellect for that. The
S/O metaphysics has been its tool. Thanks to objectivity, society has been
able to produce technology even without human rights. And has not been able
to decree the primacy of arts on technology.
Science and technology are the answer to the first requirement of intellect:
they are directed below, to solve social needs. If we want that our infant
intellect become adult, we must make it look upwards. Human rights are not
social. Art as carrier of meanings is not social.
If you perceive as intellectual only science, math and technology, you can't
perceive the possible advanced achievements of the intellectual level.
Aesthetics, Happiness, Awareness. These are mystic only in a SOM view. In a
MOQ view are real. And good. And highly valuable.
> MARCO:
> So I did not find my answer. I'm not sure that democracy is able to
> support new dynamic enhancements. That is, I'm not sure it's the
> most moral solution.
>
> ROGER:
> I do not understand your confusion. Not at all......Have you missed the
> incredible intellectual achievements that are coming out of
> western society? Quantum physics, air travel, cosmology,
> chaos theory, the MOQ, the internet, this post! etc......
May I continue your list? Pollution, Suicides, A-bombs, Mad Cows....
There are good and bad things... You seem to remember only what's good.
Take care of your dreams.
Marco.
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:27 BST