Dear Nick,
I want to try and relate what I have been saying about dreams to this from 
the web site:

"A basic intellectual task of academic inquiry would be to articulate our 
problems of living (personal, social and global) and propose and critically 
assess possible solutions, possible actions. This would be the task of 
social inquiry and the humanities. Tackling problems of knowledge would be 
secondary. Social inquiry would be at the heart of the academic enterprise, 
intellectually more fundamental than natural science. On a rather more 
long-term basis, social inquiry would be concerned to help humanity build 
cooperatively rational methods of problem-solving into the fabric of social 
and political life, so that we may gradually acquire the capacity to resolve 
our conflicts and problems of living in more cooperatively rational ways 
than at present. Natural science would change to include three domains of 
discussion: evidence, theory, and aims - the latter including discussion of 
metaphysics, values and politics. Academic inquiry as a whole would become a 
kind of people's civil service, doing openly for the public what actual 
civil services are supposed to do in secret for governments. Academia would 
actively seek to educate the public by means of discussion and debate, and 
would not just study the public."

According to the old order,  I articulate the problem of 'mice in the 
kitchen' and set about dreaming, designing, and constructing a better 
mousetrap. The unstated values which define what constitutes 'better' in 
this case might include more humane, more lethal, cheaper, more 
entertaining, etc. These are not subject to question within the problem 
solving exercise and are not expressed in the solution. One might call them 
assumptions which define the scope of the dream. These values may form a 
heirarchy whose exact order varies according to circumstances and from 
person to person, but to the extent that we agree about them, we can agree 
about what a 'better' mousetrap consists of.
The values will be very different from cars to hand-grenades to scientific 
theories, but as long as the values are separate from the thing being valued 
we at least know how to debate. I might want to say that a 'better' hand 
grenade would be one that didn't explode at all, but it would at least be 
clear that I am arguing about values and not explosives. In their own terms, 
a better explosive is always going to be some variation of 'more bang for 
your buck'.

The problem with the humanities is that the separation breaks down, because 
the thing that I am trying to 'better' is the same thing that articulates 
the values. If the problem is not external to the valuer as is the case with 
"...problems of living in more cooperatively rational ways than at present." 
then there is a problem of circularity, and in particular a problem with 
time.
A better way of living requires - alomost consists in - having better 
values. But I need to already have tomorrow's values in order to value them 
more highly than today's values. In the case of the mousetrap, I can make 
'progress' because my values stay the same and I can compare today's 
mousetrap with tomorrow's according to those values. But if my values 
change, then all bets are off and there is no basis for comparison. For this 
reason, it seems to me that dreams, plans and methods will not answer in 
this case. Perhaps your new order of social science can answer this, but I 
haven't found it so far?

Best wishes, bob Macintosh

http://bobtwice.blogspot.com/
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/meetingpool
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIENDSOFWISDOM-D] Responses to what our Website Says


> BTW Nick, forgot to say - the process of getting our dreams on the
> same page was an essential part of the process.
>
> If we had starting proposing words and messages and communication
> channels and events, based on the FoW Website's existing words ....
> we'd all have been talking past each other. (In fact many of us were.)
>
> Ian
>
> On 3/28/07, ian glendinning <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi Nick, just a holding response for now, in a gap in the day job.
>>
>> So back to where we were a couple of weeks ago,
>> Yes, let's find tangible, objective things to plan and do, with the
>> FoW words and means of communicating those to the target audience.
>>
>> All I was saying was Yes, but not at the expense of the "soft" stuff.
>>
>> Essentially our aims are "soft" - dreams & hopes, but we feel the
>> frustration of how we "organise" to achieve them, without somehow
>> being left with just the "hard" bits - a broken dream. We murder to
>> dissect. This is not a new problem - in any sphere of organization and
>> governance. I really would like to find time to say something about
>> this "loose-tight" management aspect, from my non-academe perspective
>> .... another time, as I say, when I have some free time.
>>
>> Alan emphasises the inseparabilty of ends and ways. No destination,
>> only a journey. Clearly this is not new either. The way to an
>> "inclusive" state is via "inclusive" methods. (Choose your preferred
>> metaphor). Do as you would be done to, practice what we preach, etc.
>> We don't want to create a club of which we'd rather not be members.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> On 3/28/07, Cherryl Martin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > Nick,
>> >
>> > I agree with what you say - and have been giving some serious thought 
>> > to the
>> > issues recently. It seems we have the perennial problem of differing
>> > perspectives - the action perspective and the process perspectives- 
>> > either
>> > 'being' or 'becoming'. It is hard to avoid the confusions that these 
>> > create
>> > since they are deeply rooted in personality and in 'ways of seeing the
>> > world'. I come back to my point - neither is wrong - they are just very
>> > different ways of thinking and 'being' - each with its own value. 
>> > Finding
>> > ways to integrate them in a constructive manner is a perpetual dilemma.
>> >
>> > As a member of the 'action' group - I share your frustration.
>> >
>> > Thank you for raising the issue of the website and opening the way for
>> > changing it. It has been a problem for me, particularly as I was not 
>> > sure of
>> > what exactly you envisaged when you created it. I have read the site 
>> > but no
>> > bells rang for me!
>> >
>> > I wonder if it would not be useful for you to outline - in the same way 
>> > as
>> > many of us have done - what your dream is for the future? It would be
>> > helpful if you could be more specific than we have been, but also as
>> > visionary. ie detailing your ideas about curriculum, funding,
>> > administration, leadership and the certification processes of your 
>> > proposed
>> > new universities. I would be interested in expanding that to an entire
>> > educational system as I strongly believe that the teaching of values 
>> > should
>> > start very early in life. Anything taught at university level should be
>> > building on what has been taught before.
>> >
>> >
>> > Best wishes
>> >
>> > Cherryl
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Group concerned that academia should seek and promote wisdom
>> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Maxwell
>> > Sent: 28 March 2007 12:47 PM
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: Responses to what our Website Says
>> >
>> > At the level of dreaming, we do probably mostly agree.  It is when we 
>> > come
>> > down to the slightly more specific questions - the concern of FoW - 
>> > about
>> > what kind of academic inquiry can best help us realize (apprehend and 
>> > make
>> > real) what is genuinely of value in life, for ourselves and others, 
>> > that
>> > disagreements may arise.  I still sense that some members of FoW do not 
>> > see
>> > the problem before us in quite the same terms as those set out on our
>> > website.  But why not?  What exactly is wrong with what our website 
>> > says?
>> > What exactly is wrong with the arguments in support of the claim that
>> > academia needs to be restructured in the ways specified if it is to be
>> > devoted rationally to helping humanity realize what is of value in 
>> > life?
>> > How might what our website says be improved?
>> >
>> > If, on the other hand, most of us agree with what our website says, 
>> > then
>> > perhaps we should take up the tasks of developing further our message, 
>> > and
>> > working out how to get it across to academics, students, fund-giving 
>> > bodies,
>> > the media, and the public.
>> >
>> >                           Best wishes,
>> >
>> >                                     Nick
>> > www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk
>> >
>>
>