Just want to say thanks for the thorough explanation below. I'm sure
it's useful to other people, too.

Scott Miller
a.k.a. DukeNukem @ ImmInst.org

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 09/30/2008 06:35 PM, game_investor wrote:
> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
> >
> >> ...[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
>