Hi PzEph:
WHOA THERE YOURSELF!
A basic requirement for intellect is extensive intellectual capacity,
something which on this planet belongs exclusively to the human
species.
I agree with Roger’s description of the intellectual level:
“I believe the intellectual level refers to the systematic art of
building and testing simplified intellectual models that allow us to
identify, learn, test, categorize, record and apply our experience.”
Show me a dolphin with such capacity and I’ll stop eating tuna fish
sandwiches.
You wrote:
> I don't normally indulge in inter-level conflicts but....
>
>
> WHOA THERE PLATT!
>
> It's Intellect which is supposed to be the morally higher level, not the
> Human species. If you want to cure yourself of the confusion between the
> two, hit town somewhere near rush hour.
>
> And since it's intellect, not humanity, which is morally more evolved than
> society (which isn't a human preserve either) or biology, it follows that
> the requirements of intellect (what ever they might be) come first, not the
> survival, and certainly not the whim, of the human species.
>
> As to what the requirements of intellect might be, perhaps we should get
> together with the Dolphins to answer this one.... anyone have their email
> address?
>
> Maybe what intellect requires for it's survival in the long term is that the
> people who claim to possess it don't go around destroying the planet.
>
> Maybe. Who knows?
>
> -Elephant
>
> P.S. I really have no idea what the requirements of intellect might be,
> BTW, or how we can ask intellect to tell us. I guess we can assume that
> being put in a concentration camp for thinking that Hitler is an idiot is a
> Bad Idea. But beyond that, I don't see how intellectualism can consititute
> a moral or political manifesto, precisely because it can constitute an
> infinite number. Similar arguments would apply to "soceity" and, indeed,
> "biology". See you in Forum to pursue the point.
>
>
> > From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@cbvnol.net>
> > Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> > Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:36:52 -0500
> > To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> > Subject: Re: MD MOQ and other species
> >
> > Hi Danila:
> >
> > You asked, “Where human needs threaten to annihilate a
> > species, should human needs prevail? If so, why?”
> >
> > I suggest you’ll find the MOQ answer in Lila, Chap. 13:
> >
> > “In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other
> > things being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at
> > a higher level of evolution, is more moral. An example of this is the
> > statement that, "It's more moral for a doctor to kill a germ than to
> > allow the germ to kill his patient." The germ wants to live. The
> > patient wants to live. But the patient has moral precedence
> > because he's at a higher level of evolution.
> >
> > “Taken by itself that seems obvious enough. But what's not so
> > obvious is that, given a value-centered Metaphysics of Quality, it is
> > absolutely, scientifically moral for a doctor to prefer the patient.
> > This is not just an arbitrary social convention that should apply to
> > some doctors but not to all doctors, or to some cultures but not all
> > cultures. It's true for all people at all times, now and forever, a
> > moral pattern of reality as real as H20. We're at last dealing with
> > morals on the basis of reason.”
> >
> > Humans have all but destroyed the species of germ that causes
> > smallpox. Last I heard there were several small vials of the deadly
> > virus frozen solid in well-guarded laboratories in Atlanta and
> > Moscow while virologists and others argue about whether to kill
> > them outright, thereby destroying the species permanently. The
> > argument for keeping them alive in suspended animation is
> > maybe we will find a beneficial use for them someday.
> >
> > The MOQ has no qualms, morally, for destroying other species on
> > the grounds that they are on a lower level of evolution than
> > humans. The only MOQ caveat is the one you expressed—“except
> > for the need for social stability.”
> >
> > Our evolutionary path to DQ is “better” than other species because
> > we are already at a higher level of evolution, i.e., more Dynamic
> > which, in MOQ terms, means higher value = more moral = better.
> >
> > What bothers me about this MOQ view is it leaves no allowance
> > for the virtue of beauty. Not that I care about the beauty of a
> > smallpox virus. But there are many species of, for instance,
> > flowers, which we humans could well destroy under the MOQ
> > theory of right/wrong. But what about the loss to us of their beauty?
> > Would that not be immoral? Sometimes I think the MOQ misses
> > an understanding of :
> >
> > To see a world in a grain of sand
> > And heaven in a wildflower
> > To hold infinity in the palm of your hand
> > And eternity in an hour
> > -- William Blake
> >
> > I’m still absorbing your latest “Art & Intellect” post and hope to
> > have a cogent response in a few days.
> >
> > Platt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 - 16:00:55 BST