ROG TO DAN ON MORAL STUFF
> 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.
DAN:
Great stuff here, but, and correct me if I am wrong, isn't Dynamic
Quality beyond zero sum concept?
ROG:
Oh yes, sorry. I will try to be more clear. I am operating completely in the
realm of sq.
DAN:
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.
ROG:
Agreed. I am dealing only with static patterns. Phaedrus has said more than
enough on DQ. (He would probably say he has said "too much".)
>
> 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.
....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.
ROG:
I agree with the ruthlessness. It is overwhelmingly more common than any
type of cooperative behavior. And I think you know me enough that I
recognize the evolutionary advancement that can come from "ye' ol' Negative
face of Quality." The world is overwhelmingly entropic. That's what makes
cooperation and complexity so totally fascinating.
Again I also agree with your last sentence. Sorry for being so sloppy with my
use of the term. Please continue to "keep me honest" as you know I will
return the favor.
>
> 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?
ROG:
Yes, in zero sum interactions (again, the most common type) , this is true.
But there are positive sum interactions where everybody or everything
involved wins. Mutually gratifying sex, for example. Or voluntary trade. Or
solitary cells uniting forces to survive. Or the Appollo 13 astronauts
working as a team to survive. Or you and I engaging in the dialectic, not
for a winner or a loser, but for the common enhancement of knowledge.
DAN:
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.
ROG:
Good suggestion. I never thought of that passage in this light. I re-read
ZAMM a couple of months ago, but sometimes associations don't always click.
Thanks as always!
Rog
PS -- I am suggesting something you are familiar with as next months topic in
the MF. Check it out!
PPS -- Did I do I fairly decent job of summarizing some of the major moral
problems that members have with the MOQ? Any that I missed
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