Hello everyone
RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
>
> ROG SHARES YEARS OF COMMONLY ACCEPTED MORAL SHORTCOMINGS AS
> IDENTIFIED IN THE MOQ
>
>
> So, what is missing in the MOQ? Two things. The first is that the
> levels need
> to be better defined. The second problem is that Pirsig seems to
> assume a
> zero-sum world from the outset. The MOQ focuses to a great extent on
> conflict. This is reasonable, as the universe is overwhelmingly zero
> sum and
> conflicts of values are widespread. But it isn't completely zero sum,
> and the
> non-zero sum dimension IMO is the one that holds the key to not only
> defining
> the levels, but in the case of the higher levels, of creating them as
> well.
Hi Roger
Great stuff here, but, and correct me if I am wrong, isn't Dynamic
Quality beyond zero sum concept? To even name it as "non-zero sum" (if
indeed that is what you are doing here) is to turn it into a static
quality representation. To that end I cannot see an argument with the
MOQ here nor do I see Phaedrus assuming any zero sum world from the
outset, unless one only considers static quality.
>
> To be more specific, I am suggesting that same-level moral dilemmas do
> have a
> solution. The answer is that the most moral interactions between
> patterns are
> win/win. The best solution isn't to harm one pattern for the benefit
> of the
> other, it is to find a strategy that benefits both. In strict game
> theory
> terminology, it is to, wherever possible, avoid zero-sum and negative
> sum
> interactions, and to actively foster or create positive sum
> interactions.
Dan:
I once read that of all the species of life on earth, the butterfly
would be considered most evolved if what you call positive sum
interactions were regarded as paramount. Universe would seem to be far
more ruthless as a rule, however, but perhaps that is only the intellect
viewing inorganic and biological processes with disdain. I recall you
bringing up simian intelligence in the meme discussion... I also have a
story to tell... kind of dark but interesting nonetheless.
It seems that a young expectant mother chimpanzee suddenly developed a
very odd compulsion during her pregnancy. She began stealing other baby
chimps from their mothers and bashing their heads against a rock until
the brains were exposed, which she then ate. One researcher observed
this deviant behavior a number of times and actually feared the mother
would do the same to her own infant when it was born.
However, after the baby chimp was born, the mother returned to her
normal behavior and exhibited none of the odd compulsion that drove her
during pregnancy, being a model mother. It was also noted that the baby
chimp, a boy, grew to be an exceptionally intelligent male, a natural
leader and one who other chimps emulated.
Now it seems obviously negative sum to steal a baby chimp, kill it and
eat its brains no matter how one rationalizes the outcome, until one
stops to wonder if perhaps our own advanced intelligence may have
something to do with this? One cannot negative sum and positive sum
Dynamic Quality, only the workings of it, static quality.
>
> The fallacy is to assume that interactions must be zero sum. This is
> not a
> valid assumption. I am in the process of working out the details of
> how the
> MOQ can be improved by clearly delineating that win/win interactions
> are not
> only a possibility, but that they virtually define the emergence of
> higher
> levels out of the lower. But this needs to wait for another day.
Looking forward to it!
> PS -- I know I haven't adequately supported my win/win hypotheses. I
> do not
> have the time to do so....yet.
Here is something to start with then: if everyone wins, who is losing?
Don't we define a winner by the loser and visa versa? I suspect this has
much to do with Phaedrus and his experiment of not giving out grades
(ZMM)... if I recall it ultimately failed but did shine much light on
our concepts of winning and losing.
Thank you for your comments.
Dan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:51 BST