The following is a MoreLife Yahoo posted reply by Paul Wakfer in response to a question and comment in a previous posted message to that same group by Scott Miller (AKA game_investor) in September 2008.
Subject: Re: Principles Emanating from Reality [was: Re: Reading between the lines
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:15:48 -0400
From: Paul Wakfer
Reply-To: morelife@yahoogroups.com
Organization: MoreLife
To: morelife@yahoogroups.com
On 09/30/2008 06:35 PM, game_investor wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer
>
>> ...[O]ne in which the principles of Social Meta-Needs (which are
>> *not* my theories, but rather emanate directly from reality if only
>> one looks penetratingly enough) are rationally understood and in
>> operation during human interactions.
> Paul, this statement stuck out for me.
I am pleased to see you reading with thought, not just skimming, and
even more pleased to have you ask a thoughtful question.
> What do you mean when you say
> "the principles of Social Meta-Needs" emanates from reality?
It means that, just like the laws of nature in any particular area
attempt to describe the behavior of a particular aspect of reality, so
the theory of Social Meta-Needs, and the principles (another word for
rules or laws) that derive from that theory, also attempts to describe
the behavior of a particular aspect of reality. The laws of physics
attempt to describe the behavior of space time and matter (the latter
in both particle and bulk form, but not the bulk form in any great
detail since that becomes the purview of many other separate
sciences). The theory of Social Meta-Needs attempts to describe the
interactions of human beings which will enable each at the same time
to optimally increase hir lifetime happiness. Thus the principles of
Social Meta-Needs are discovered by examining reality in the same
manner as the laws of physics are found by examining reality. It
appears to me that no one before me has examined the essence of what
it means to be a human living with other humans on this Earth
sufficiently carefully to have seen the complete and consistent
picture of just what principles of human interaction will optimize the
lifetime happiness of each all at the same time (or even that such a
set of principles can even exist at all).
> Is this because these principles are based on human psychology?
Yes and no. They are based on the essential characteristics of human
beings (characteristics that are inherent in being human and therefore
common to all humans). Much of this would reasonably be placed under
the heading of human psychology (and sociology too). However, current
human psychology is merely the study of the behavior of the humans
that have arisen within the current social environment. Human
psychology says almost nothing about what humans could be, should be
(in order to each optimally increase hir lifetime happiness) and,
therefore, ought to be.
> Your statement, IMO, also implies that there is no other set of
> principles that can exist, since reality has one truth (to the best
> of my knowledge).
Again that is essentially correct. Just as there is only one correct
physical law (although a recent Science News article described how
some physicists are beginning to doubt this in general), so there
would be only one correct set of principles that will enable all
humans together to each optimally increase hir lifetime happiness.
Thus, my approach is completely at odds with most social philosophers
who appear to think that the rules of social behavior are quite
arbitrary and dependent on which culture one is in - which is, of
course, nothing but a recipe for conflict - a sort of tower of Babel
with respect to rules of social behavior on top of the language and
religion problems already existent in the world.
So while I have discovered the ideas of Social Meta-Needs, just as a
physicist discovers a new physical law, and the theory of Social
Meta-Needs is mine in the same way that the theory of general
relativity is Einstein's, that theory is not mine in the sense of
being a social scheme for human interaction derived from my own
particular cultural heritage and my own personal narrow biased views
of how humans should behave - as is the case for most other social
theories.
My approach to the science of human interaction has been entirely
similar to that of any scientist who asks what principles, laws or
rules of behavior govern/describe the operation of a certain set of
objects of reality and their environmental interactions. So in the
same manner, I looked at the most primary and essential aspects of
human existent, human environment and potential human interactions.
The theory of Social Meta-Needs is the result of that examination.
--Paul
