[RC] GROCS, Part II: Characterizing Freedom (WAS: Philosophy)

[Dr.Ernie Prabhakar]

Hi Billy,

> What this brings up is a serious question for your philosophy : How  
> can
> anyone tell if his (or her) psyche is being damaged -A- by a respected
> community you are part of, and -B- whether a solution you hit upon
> after realizing that you need to get out from under a dysfunctional
> community is, indeed, something good ? How can we, in seeking to
> escape one pathology, avoid falling into another pathology ?

Thanks for your kind comments, and a wonderful segueway. :-)

In particular, you've lasered in on both the strength and weakness of  
my epistemology:  it asserts that the quality of our knowledge is  
dependent on the quality of both our character and our community.    
Thus, epistemic questions can no longer be considered apart from  
personal ethics and social relationships.  If this is true (and I  
believe it is), then it accurately describes the problem -- at the  
price of vastly enlarging it.

Which leads to your next point:

> Given what you have just said, Ernie, how would you use your  
> philosophy
> to solve both the problem of dysfunctional community values or
> decision-making processes, AND the problems that individuals
> need to deal with as a consequence of (generally unrecognized)
> community pathologies or misguided rationality ?

Thanks for asking!  As intimated before, epistemology -- as reflected  
in Part I of GROCS -- is not sufficient.  Fortunately, I have three  
other Parts to pull from, which (as it happens :-) deal precisely  
with what it means to have a healthy character and a healthy  
community, as well as how to recognize when we don't (i.e., humility).

To start with, I want to move on to GROCS Part II, which is about  
Character:

http://radicalcentrism.org/manifesto.html
>> Character ←
>> I believe in Conscious Moral Choice µ:
>>     Conscious in Knowledge to estimate consequences
>>        Moral in Wisdom to optimize total value
>>           Choice in Freedom to find alternatives
>>              for creating or rewarding value

What do you think of that?

> No fair trying to wiggle out of this problem with physics formulas !

Darn!  Okay, I'll expand a little further. :-)

I am effectively asserting that the defining aspect of human nature  
is the capacity to make conscious moral choices.   Not that we have  
"full" capacity, but at least "some" capacity.  Put another way,  
every choice we make is more or less conscious, and more or less  
moral (or immoral).

To be sure, some choices are unconscious or amoral; I am asserting  
the existence of a continuum between, say, being asleep (the totally  
unconscious and amoral choice to do nothing) and being God  
(infinitely conscious and infinitely moral).  You can even construct  
a negative pole of Satan (totally immoral yet totally conscious),

This may not seem like a big deal, but it seems to me that many other  
philosophies start with other assumptions, and end up either  
destroying the possibility of choice, or idolizing it to the point of  
denying reality. To avoid that, I include choice up front, right  
after Reality.  At the same time, I am not even taking a position on  
determinism vs. free will: I am merely asserting that the phenomenon  
(or perhaps epi-phenomenon) of choice is something we have to deal  
with -- without worrying about whether it is provably real from other  
assumptions. You ultimately have to assume something, so I'm assuming  
this.

Some of you (especially the Libertarians) may be uncomfortable with  
this rather restrictive idea of Freedom.  Good. :-)  I actually think  
this redefinition (which I originally got from Josh McDowell, if you  
care) is essential in order to get a sustainable understanding of the  
relationship between 'rights' and 'responsibilities.'  At the risk of  
equation-izing, I put it this way:

I believe:
a) The fundamental human right is the freedom to choose for myself  
what is good
b) The fundamental human responsibility is the duty to choose for  
myself what is good

In other words, rights and responsibilities are quite literally two  
sides of the same coin.  All other freedoms and duties are, in  
effect, social constructions to simultaneously honor that right and  
enforce that responsibility.

Thus, the first part of the answer to Billy's question (about  
recognizing pathology) is that I can look at my character, and my  
circumstances and choices, to ask whether I am increasing knowledge,  
wisdom, and freedom.   However, that does NOT fully address the  
question of identifying a pathological community.  To do that, we  
have to jump to Part III...

...but first, I'll pause to see if anyone has any questions or  
comments on Part II.  I'm happy to explain more, but I'd prefer to  
first find out what (if anything) you want me to elaborate on.

Characteristically yours,
-- Ernie P.

-------
RadicalCentrism.org is an anti-partisan think tank based near   
Sacramento, California, which is seeking to develop a new paradigm  
of  civil society encompassing politics, economics, and philosophy.  
We  are dedicated to developing and promoting the ideals of Reality,   
Character, Community & Humility as expressed in our Radical Centrist  
Manifesto: The Ground Rules of Civil Society <http:// 
radicalcentrism.org/manifesto.html>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/attachments/20050503/4e4ae2e5/attachment.html