[extropy-chat] protecting progress

[Thomas]

  Jef Allbright wrote:

>Thomas wrote:  
>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>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?
>
Context matters.  I don't appreciated fanatical suicidal violence 
against progress and I don't think myself a moral coward to avoid 
violent confrontation.  That I tolerate verbal friction (here with you) 
demonstrates at least a mild appreciation of the merits of constructive 
conflict.  

>>[...]
>>
>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?
>
1. I appreciate the conflict.  2. Is this coming to you as plain text 
now?  I'm sorry.  I don't see the nonstandard quoting style.  I'd be 
happy accomodate if I could see what you see.  

>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.
>
Jef, I grant you all the above except two words: "little more." 
 Speaking in a discreet context (volitional human commerce) those terms 
differ significantly.

>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."
>
"Good" violence relies on prior "bad" violence and it really doesn't 
make it "right," does it?  What makes revenge such a sacred idea?  It 
certainly won't get us off this planet.  We can understand it per EP, 
but for the sake of progress, we'd better stop sanctioning it and turn 
to prevention and healing.  

>Calibrating question:  Would you choose to use deadly force to protect your family if you could see no practical alternative?
>
Why would someone who espouses increased awareness hand me a context of 
awareness of horror only, who champions expanded future interests limit 
me to no alternative, who seeks effective principles of interaction 
offer me the principle of deadly force and ask me to calibrate my 
morality to such a context?  Jef, lets not discuss morality outside the 
context of choice.  

>[...]
>
>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
>
Maybe you didn't mean to speak in such unqualified terms when you said, 
"you will need to learn that conflict at one level leads to cooperation 
and growth at a higher level of organization. Avoiding conflict leads to 
stagnation and eventual non-existence of that which you value."

*Violent* conflict is not ruled out above.  Dead men don't cooperate and 
grow no matter how complex your organization.  I think you could make a 
case against pathological avoidance of conflict, but in most cases 
conflict slows progress, especially violent conflict.  Convince me an 
attack on a space elevator would lead to cooperation.  Counterviolence 
grants violence the status of an operating principle.  

I know nothing of your behavior beyond what you've shown me on this 
list, but invalidating definitions by dodging the specific context 
(volitional human commerce) seems evasive.  You suggested taxation in a 
recent post (Sorry, I can't cite it.  I deleted it.).  Taxation relies 
on the threat of violence.  I'd like to see us start thinking with 
Keith's "get 'er done" spirit in the area of expanding human freedom. 
 Free happy people don't become suicidal fanatics.  -- Thomas

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070217/dee39fe6/attachment.html>