ROGER GETS ANOTHER POST IN TO MARCO MARCO: 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: No, the problem is that you (as many Italians).....nah, lets not go there.... MARCO: 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? ROGER: Agreed. This is the process. M: The process of advance towards complexity you mention is not linear in times, it proceeds up and down. R: Agreed M: 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). R: Agreed, strongly! The fractured nature of nation-city states in Europe led to a competitive cooperative laboratory of new ideas, successes and failures. These were suppressed in Rome and China and even Japan for various reasons. See the Jared Diamond article in EDGE http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond_rich/rich_p1.html or http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond/diamond_p1.html Agree 100% on the nature of anti-trust too. You will not hear me argue the value of competition or cooperation (and yes, you can have a good mixture of both) M: 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? R: Actually, I think the totalitarian regimes were NO COMPETITION. They solidified themselves behind their own Great Walls/Iron Curtains. I believe the competition has been getting immensely tougher. M: 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. R: No argument on their conditions or about TV. M: I simply would like to see a fast development of their economic situation, with more respect for their culture, their environment, their past. R: The fastest cultural transmissions have tended to come from conquering others. Certainly this isn't what you recommend. I gaurantee you I do not recommend it Longer term the process will work by memetic transfer. Good ideas from both cultures can spread freely. But it must be voluntary. Forcing it will just backfire, as it will not respect their environment or past. M: My words sound so schizoid to those that can't well distinguish social and intellectual values. R: Prescient words. See below M: Please, reread my words above: "The free market is the evil when it deals with arts, human rights, education, philosophy, religion, science...." R: Odd, considering free market societies have been where all of these have flourished. Yes, flourished!!! Please let me know which social pattern has done better -- all things considered. I am not saying any system is perfect, but do you know a better system? If not, do you think a better system is likely to emerge from socialism, totalitarianarism, communism, libertarianism, chiefdoms, Sacred Rulers....or out of good ol' fashioned democratic/free enterprise pluralities? Your argument is like saying that "biology woulda done better if life was built out of both carbon and .......aluminum. Carbon (the most dynamic) alone isn't dynamic enough." Face it, the most dynamic platform won. Evolution didnt do less well built out of ONLY the most dynamic element, it did better. (OK, nobody can argue what could have happenned, but you see my point) Your argument is along the same lines as "We could evolve better basketball teams if we experiment with teams comprised of midgets." Better competition comes in a field of winners than one winner in a field of losers. M: But what are these "checks and balances?". And who will preserve diversity? R: Democrats vs Republicans Congress vs the Judiciary Liberals vs Democrats Europe vs Japan Coke vs Pepsi Unions vs Corporations Environmentalists vs Developers Marco vs Roger I believe in the dialectic. Plurality. I support the process, not one side or the other. M: IMO, intellectual patterns, created with the purpose to control and dominate the social. And this is all what I'm asking for! R: Successful control of the level below cannot blatantly contradict values. To control biology, society has to appeal to survival and to appeal to biological values. It is called win/win. That is what successful societies do better than unsuccessful ones. Harmony. Win/win between levels. The intellect will need to reach a similar harmony if it is to succeed as well. Otherwise all you get is pollution , A-bombs and mad cows.. M: 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? R: THE PLUROCRATIC CHECKS AND BALANCES OF DEMOCRACY/FREE ENTERPRISE IS THE CULTURE. Better cultures will be able to withstand the memetic 'onslaught' just fine. We are free to choose the best memes. But this choice will be our culture. >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. M: 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. R: This would be true if there was not competition within the model. But it is absurd to have dynamic models compete against the static. Its like carbon-based life competing against aluminum based Basketball players against midgets Living organisms vs dead organisms winners competing vs losers If you have an alternate model of success, please share it with us. I am sure we will find one some time or another, but it will grow out of a winner, not a loser. >ROGER: >We don't need a better intellectual solution to >society, we need good society upon which to establish >intellectual advance. M: 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. R: Absolutely not. Biology doesn't have some kind of PURPOSE TO CREATE SOCIETY. You've got it backward. Higher levels emerge out of the lower as the lower attends to better solutions (which are invariably of the win/win variety ie molecules cooperating with others molecules to form a chemical feedback loop called life, life cooperating to form society etc.) The higher level emerges out of the values of the lower and only later develops values of its own. M: The "good society" I'm longing must be enforced on this second point. R: You scare me some times..... >Roger > Intellectual advance is > science, math, knowledge, technology etc. M: And human rights? And Arts? R: Human rights are social values.. As for the Arts, I do not agree that these are intellectual values either. But if you insist that both of these are intellectual, then please show me your recommended social competitor to free enterprise/democracy and let me know its track record on these two. I'm serious Marco. Maybe you should vote for Horse's suggestion. M: IMO science and technology are intellectual products driven by social needs. R: EXACTLY! Such is the birth of a new level. We are in agreement again..... M: 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. R: What could be more social than rights? What do you think these are? Thats what rules and laws and commandments and constitutions and religions etc have been focusing on. Marco, are you serious? And "carrying of meanings" isn't social? Dang dude, there has been art since before writing. I would think it more likely writing developed out of art than vice versa. M: If you perceive as intellectual only science, math and technology, you can't perceive the possible advanced achievements of the intellectual level. R: Thanks for the lesson. M: Aesthetics, Happiness, Awareness. These are mystic only in a SOM view. In a MOQ view are real. And good. And highly valuable. R: And your point is.... Oh thats right, the MOQ was the product of a totalitarian regime...... > 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...... M: 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. R: Your question was whether democratic society could support new dynamic advancements. Not whether intellectual influence over social was perfect. And if your argument is that intellect needs to FORCE itself on the social level, your list is a great starting place of what to watch out for. If you run out of time, feel free to respond on the other forum. Rog ------- End of forwarded message ------- MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
