[extropy-chat] protecting progress

[Jef Allbright]

Thomas wrote:

> [Jef wrote:]

>> I understand that you abhor coercion and
>> conflict in all its forms.  It's all a
>> matter of context.

----------

> Thanks for repeating that.  And I agree with
> these generalities except the phrase: "in all
> its forms."  That mischaracterizes me.  I get
> pleasure from our conceptual commerce and
> tolerate a fairly high gradient of cognitive
> dissonance. 

Isn't tolerating cognitive dissonance and example of avoidance, rather than of an appreciation of the merits of constructive conflict?

> If you are trying to teach me that violence is
> acceptable at simple levels of human commerce
> then why site Hans Rosling's strong evidence
> that less violence increases life span and
> quality worldwide?
>
> 1. Myths about the developing world (Amazing
> graphics) (TEDTalks, Hans Rosling) - Google Video

That's a great video.  I don't think I cited it, though, but simply recommended it for its wonderful example of data visualization and its reassuring message of progress dependant on human freedoms.

First of all, let me tell you that I tend to get a bit uppity when people appear to suggest that I might actually promote moral negatives such as violence.  Second, could you switch to plain text and standard quoting style?

My point to you today, and last time we touched on this, is that the difference between persuasion, coercion, and force is little more than context.  Can you show me a clear dividing line?  Likewise for conflict and competition. It might help to keep in mind that no such categories actually exist in "reality"; they are only artifacts of our attempts to make sense of our shared observations.

Morality in its extensible sense hinges on an effective understanding of context. Violence in one context can be seen as irredeamably destructive and thus immoral.  The same violent actions for a "right" cause can be seen as morally good.  But it's important that you don't confuse this "morality within context" with ungrounded "moral relativity."

Calibrating question:  Would you choose to use deadly force to protect your family if you could see no practical alternative?

That's probably enough to chew on (non-violently, of course.)

I'd like to ask for clarification of your statement about violence and "simple levels of human commerce." I note that you're using "commerce" in the very general sense meaning any exchange of value, including this discussion, but it seems inappropriate to the point of absurdity to suggest that I would "try to teach...that violence is acceptable" in such a context.  Was your question intended to incite a reaction, or was it a sincere expression of your understanding of my behavior?

- Jef