Timothy,

3 points were made in my response[1] to your post:

1) That the uncivilized behavior patterns attributed to "most western
especially Americans"[2] is not unique to that subset of the biped
known as Man. This pattern of behavior has been exhibited by
practically *every single collective* that has come into the
possession of 'power'. And here I can add that this pattern of
behavior is in fact expressive of the value system of 'Might makes
Right' philosophy of life, which is _provably_ a 'contingent value
system'[3], and is in fact (imo) **the only Rational (and honest)
contingent value system**. (But that doesn't mean I agree with it ;)

2) That it is careless, at best, to present the truth of the _fact_
that *everything* in existence is interdependent on something else,
as a new understanding, or that the moral code of social conduct that
acknowledges that _fact_ is a 'new value system'[4]. (The point of
your associate [5] is quite well understood and accepted, and was
hinted at in a previous post [6] -- so we are not in disagreement in
that regard. But that was not the object of our divergence, was it?)

3) That there are 2 ways of making one's choices in life, and these 2
ways are expressive of 2 fundamentally different conceptions of the
meaning and purpose of existence. To highlight this let me present
this to you: Today, you and I are in agreement regarding our "value
system". To me, this is the same old value system, and I hold it to
be valid today, tomorrow, and a million years from now, baring some
unforeseen (and unexpected) changes in the very nature of existence.
To you, it is a "new value system" of a 'new age' of "synergy", and
expressed using neologisms, in response to 'historic' changes: i.e.
it is expressive of a contingent view of life.

Which only makes me wonder:

Which value set will you adopt should our circumstances undergo a
drastic or catastrophic change? (These changes are actually not too
hypothetical ...)

Will you remain a "synergist"? Will you revert back to the values of
the "age of neutrality", or even the "age of aggression"? Or would
these changes usher in yet another new "age" requiring a "new value
system" -- a value system perhaps in opposition to your currently
held values?

And finally: How could one even criticize the selfish ones, if one
believes in relative value systems? Based on what Lasting Truth is
this critique made? Because its not 'nice'? (What is Good and
Right, after all, in a Contingent Universe?)


Peace.

Joubin


--
[1]:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SocialModels4P2PNetworks/message/21>

[2]:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SocialModels4P2PNetworks/message/20>

[3]: con·tin·gent (kn-tnjnt) adj. )Logic): True only under certain
conditions; not necessarily or universally true: a contingent
proposition. <http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?
term=contingent>

[4]: "In 2001, humanity has the option for synergic relationship. If
we choose Synergy we will adopt a **new set of values**"
[**emphasis** mine
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SocialModels4P2PNetworks/message/18>

[5]: "As my associate Arthur Noll asks his students when making this
point, 'Lets start with your naked body. Can you manage to clothe and
feed and shelter this body, with no hands touching any article except
your own hands?' ... "
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SocialModels4P2PNetworks/message/20>


[6]: "[F]ew ponder the fact that should "Atlas"[5] find himself on a
desert island, he would be too busy searching his next meal to sit
and "shrug". [My spelling mistake
corrected :)] "<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SocialModels4P2PNetwork
s/message/19>