I'm sorry, I'm unable to see which text you marked 'red'. (I copy
messages to text files and use an old program [WordStar] to do my
reading and writing.) Even so, I believe I've found your comments. If
I messed it up, please correct me.
re: "Consider one's pursuing one's own interest according with
the requirements - to wit, the physical laws - of the
natural environment one lives in.
Consider one's pursuing one's own interest according with
the requirements - to wit, the authority's consent - of the
social environment one lives in.
Consider that there is conflict between the social and the
natural requirements of the complex environment one lives
in. For instance, a complex environment where the social
authority requires consumerism, or else war, and the
physical laws require respectfulness for natural resources
and peace.
Or else, nearer to the aims of this esteemed list, please
consider a conflict between
-- our allegiance to social authorities who want us to
accomplish good policies that have been decided by
themselves, ie top-down, and
-- our allegiance to natural environment that requires us to
accomplish policies that are directly linked to the
territory we live in, ie decided from bottom-up. Isn't it
this the difference between representative and direct
democracy?
I copied your entire assertion because I like the way you describe the
problem. If my view differs, it is in my attitude toward 'the
authority'. I get the impression you consider 'the authority' an entity
properly distinct from the people. I don't. I believe 'the authority'
has improperly arrogated to itself a position distinct from (and above)
the people.
To me, this is the central problem we must resolve. We must side-step
the vested interests that presently control 'the authority' and elevate
the best of our number to take that control.
I fear your focus is much broader than my own. I visited the links you
provided. Unfortunately, I couldn't open the Antonio.Lucknow.ppt or
evans-experientialism files. Even though the flexible-learning.org file
is a bit beyond my level of expertise, I think it an important area of
thought. Reading it reminded me of Dr. Alasdair MacIntrye in the sense
that mental flexibility and social interaction are intertwined:
"Politics will be understood and lived as a practice, and it
will be about the pursuit of internal goods/goods of
excellence rather than external goods/goods of effectiveness.
It is only because and when a certain range of moral
commitments is shared, as it must be within a community
structured by networks of giving and receiving, that not only
shared deliberation, but shared critical enquiry concerning
that deliberation and the way of life of which it is a part,
becomes possible"
From The Political Philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre as described by Dr.
Edward Clayton in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
I also looked at The Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) link. As I said, I
fear this greatly exceeds my area of interest.
Although I would prefer to develop through dialogue the concept of
selecting our representatives from among ourselves rather than having
them chosen by the political elites that control our major political
parties, you might like to look at
It sets forth the rationale from one point of view. (The site will be
unavailable for about 10 minutes on Wednesday (5/13) at 2:00AM Pacific
Daylight Time.)
To summarize, I agree with your description of the difficulty of
resolving the conflict between obedience to 'the authority' and the
limits of our natural environment. It is my view that 'the authority'
has usurped control of our government(s) by the self-interested actions
of its principles over a period of 200 years and that the most rational
approach to correcting the problem is to devise an electoral method that
harnesses our tendency to pursue our own interest and equates probity
with self-interest for those seeking positions of leadership.