On Sat, August 13, 2011 15:18, Rich Cooper said:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AzamatAbdoullaev (01)
>> "An ontology of self-interest should
>> include all needs..."
>
> Ultimately, yes, but we have to start with simple
> examples and build on them to find more emergent
> truths that can be useful. (02)
>> This is two orthogonal things. Needs,
>> fundamental, psychological, spiritual, ethical, social, cultural,
>> necessary and sufficent conditions for human living.
>> Humans advance science, technology and
>> industry to create more wealth, thus
>> to overcome social injustice and social
>> ills prevalent today -- hunger,
>> poverty, unemployment, illiteracy,
>> diseases, wars, environment degradation,
>> and many other badnesses. These problems
>> still continue because of the
>> dominant economic and political
>> self-interests, the main source of social
>> evils. The mainstream (unenlightened self-interest) (03)
> Whoa, the seven billion people on the planet have
> evolved because we all have a good grasp on our
> own self interest as we each see it, and in deep
> detail. Consider a teenager learning how to get
> along with her peers in high school. The amount
> of self positioning and self describing is huge!
> She is very self interested, and is learning how
> to make deep decisions that will affect the rest
> of her life. She then continues same through
> choosing relationships, having and raising
> children, and preparing for all manner of
> hardships and obstacles. Each of us really does,
> IMHO, have a DEEP understanding of our self
> interest. (04)
The teenager is socialized by her family, school, friends and
possibly religious upbringing. She learns to consider
others as well as herself. It is not all one person
learning to get along by herself. (05)
>> ... insists that the persons
>> who act to further his self-interests
>> ultimately serve the public interests. (06)
> Only politicians, lobbyists, propagandists, media
> reporters, and others who sell to the public try
> to construe their own self interests as in the
> public self interest. (07)
Most people have empathy for others, either a narrow
group, or possibly at a lesser level for society as
a whole, or possibly merely some subset thereof. This is
what those charities who ask people to sponsor poor Third
World kids play upon. (08)
This is not "construing their own self interests as in the
public self interest", but conversely construing the public
self interest as partially in their own self interest. (09)
> Most of us want our family,
> friends, relatives and strangers to serve our self
> interests, but we aren't as well trained to be
> blatant about it. (010)
And most of us want to serve the interests of our family
and friends. Many also want to improve the lot of more
distant relatives and various classes of strangers if it
is not too inconvenient. (011)
>> The "enlightened self-interest" opposes:
>> the persons who act to further the
>> interests of others (or the interests of
>> the group or groups to which they
>> belong), ultimately serve their own
>> self-interests. A dilemma, a big social
>> quandary which mothered two polar types of
>> human society: capitalism and socialism. (012)
> Capitalists and socialists differ only (IMHO) in
> the particular way they construe their own self
> interests. Capitalists (i.e. businessmen) believe
> that they can advance their own self interest by
> offering products and services (at a nice profit)
> to markets composed of people who have shown they
> will pay for such. Socialists (i.e. rabble rousers) (013)
An interesting definition (014)
> believe they can organize others to force
> their own self interests into being through mobs,
> IMHO. (015)
Certainly state Communists were into forcing their
ideas onto others. Socialists, on the other hand,
try to better the lot of others because their empathy
causes them to suffer when others suffer. They are
idealists who feel that most others would care for
people who are suffering as they do if only they
make them see the injustices. They have thus struggled
for the rights of "oppressed" workers, of racial minorities,
of women, of migrants, of gays, and of colonial peoples. (016)
> I know that others will disagree; sorry for
> the honesty if it affects anyone negatively, but I
> stand by this belief. (017)
> History shows that there are good people who help
> others (Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa, .)
> but they are so rare as to be handily noted. (018)
There are tremendous numbers of people who help others,
although not so many as on the scale of those you mention.
Look at those who run soup kitchens, run shelters for
battered women, for example. Those who struggle against
racial oppression, wars they consider unjust, and other
types of oppression that don't immediately affect them
should also be lumped in this category. (019)
>> I believe these human issues are more
>> actual than the talks about the microorganisms
>> self-interests, like the pathogens are more
>> egoistic, while the harmless micro-organisms, as
>> intestinal flora, look more altruistic creatures :). (020)
> Evolutionary theorists, like Adam Smithians before
> them, believe that altruism is based on shared
> genetic propensities that benefit the common gene
> pool. (021)
Adam Smith knew nothing about a gene pool. This may
be a reason that altruism developed, but it also may
have developed because it helped a small band of people,
and thus the altruistic individual, stay alive as well. (022)
Be that as it may, morality derived from altruism has
become a social phenomena that is taught to most members
of society, and is seen as a good in its own right. (023)
-- doug f (024)
> Remember that all humans share more than 99
> % of our genes, even 97% with chimpanzees and
> bonobos, so I think the altruistic model as common
> self interest works. That is why I incorporated
> it into Use Case 1. At the bacterial level, there
> is minimal conversation, but messages (Peircean
> signs, as JFS points out) are simplest at that
> level, and we can build on top of that once we
> have an ontological vocabulary for doing so.
>
> "What are the various trade-offs that
> cause some people to be libertarians,
> others to be socialists, others to be
> progressives, others to be various
> flavors
> of conservatives or liberals."
> Your Worldview, Philosophy, Belief,
> Values, and Religion. Ultimately, the
> scope and level of your knowledge. Since
> there are universal truths of
> society to be recognized by any social
> movements. One of them: the lack of
> social cohesion (material needs and
> conditions; order, safety and freedom;
> social networks and interactions; social
> inclusion and integration;
> equality, equity and life chances) is a
> principal reason of social
> instability.
> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
> Agreed, but we have to start somewhere small to
> enable growth to these larger scale topics. We
> can't start with the high level because it is too
> complex, and we will be debating again instead of
> modeling. Lets start here, as JFS suggested, at
> the bacterial level and move upward from there so
> we can make some progress.
>
> -Rich
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum]"
> <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 1:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest
> Ontology going offline
>
>
> > An ontology of self-interest should
> include all needs, at the base and
> > apex
> > of Maslow's hierarchy. I would also
> include Manfred Max-Neef's set of
> > "fundamental human needs", which
> overlaps Maslow's hierarchy. Max-Neef
> > includes qualities, things to have,
> actions, interactions, and settings
> > in his "Human Scale Development".
> >
> > On Thu, August 11, 2011 3:58, matthew
> lange said:
> >> I follow the conversation of a
> self-interest ontology, with great self
> >> interest. I would be happy to be
> included in its continued discourse,
> >> but
> >> would be even more delighted if the
> ontology focused on lower levels of
> >> Maslow's hierarchy of needs, in terms
> of survival--with special attention
> >> aimed at characterizing fitness as
> composed by a person's trajectory
> >> toward
> >> desired metabolic, physical, emotional,
> cognitive and ??? phenotypes.
> >
> > Merely dealing with survival needs will
> not provide the terminology
> > necessary to explain (or rationalize)
> human action. What are the
> > various trade-offs that cause some
> people to be libertarians, others to
> > be socialists, others to be
> progressives, others to be various flavors
> > of conservatives or liberals. The right
> would label the left (and itself)
> > differently than the left would. It
> would be interesting to explain this
> > using formal ontologies.
> >
> > -- doug f
> >
> >> Does this sound doable?
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> matthew
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Rich
> Cooper
> >> <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear John,
> >>>
> >>> I agree; ontology of self interest
> should be part
> >>> of the list topic catalog, however,
> examples,
> >>> including political ones, are needed
> to illustrate
> >>> points in self interest. For example,
> we four
> >>> have divergent viewpoints on nearly
> every
> >>> political issue we raised in the
> forum, and I
> >>> don't see how we can avoid such
> examples in the
> >>> future. So the problem remains; many
> people
> >>> simply can't discuss political issues
> (or other
> >>> self interest issues) that impinge on
> their self
> >>> worth. That is what I regard as the
> problem we
> >>> had on the list.
> >>>
> >>> If you have suggestions about how to
> do that
> >>> without upsetting people like Chris
> Menzel, I
> >>> would be happy to entertain it. But
> it wasn't
> >>> ONLY Chris, at least a couple of
> others preferred
> >>> to avoid it.
> >>>
> >>> Or maybe we can convince Peter to
> split off a
> >>> second list that relates to self
> interest
> >>> specifically - that would be easier
> anyway than
> >>> having political (or other
> self-interest) issues
> >>> discussed in an open forum where
> people get upset.
> >>> I have no desire to be involved in
> flames or name
> >>> calling, and would prefer that we
> discuss it in a
> >>> way that doesn't create the
> opportunity for such.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> But if you believe we can discuss it
> without
> >>> getting into politics (I remain
> unconvinced still)
> >>> I am game to try it a bit more.
> >>>
> >>> How do the other two of us feel about
> this?
> >>> Should we go back to the list, or is
> it too
> >>> problematic to do so.
> >>>
> >>> -Rich
> >>>
> >>> Sincerely,
> >>> Rich Cooper
> >>> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> >>> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> >>> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: John F. Sowa
> [mailto:sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:14
> PM
> >>> To: Rich Cooper
> >>> Cc: '[ontolog-forum] ';
> AzamatAbdoullaev; doug
> >>> foxvog
> >>> Subject: Re: Self Interest Ontology
> going offline
> >>>
> >>> Rich,
> >>>
> >>> There is nothing wrong about an
> ontology that
> >>> includes concepts
> >>> such as SelfInterest. That would be
> an important
> >>> part of any
> >>> ontology that includes purposive
> action of any
> >>> kind.
> >>>
> >>> The complaints were about political
> issues, which
> >>> don't belong
> >>> on this forum.
> >>>
> >>> As I said, the issues about self
> interest for
> >>> humans belong
> >>> to the issue of self interest for any
> living
> >>> things, and it
> >>> should be part of the same ontology.
> That is
> >>> certainly
> >>> a topic for Ontolog Forum.
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
> (025)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (026)
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
============================================================= (027)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (028)
|