Danila,
I'm going to leave the active discussion on MD for some times. Actually
I usually do prefer to be engaged on MF; I've been here lately (and
happily) to pursue the "democracy/intellect/art", which was originated
on MF, then shifted here.
I just offer to "your" current thread few lines, in order to clarify my
thoughts. Hope it will be of help.
> I posed the conflict between the human species and other species:
>
> What does the MOQ advocate? The choices are:
> a) Maximize the number of humans (and thus the potential amount
> of intellectual DQ) BUT at the cost of loss of DQ in the biological
level
> of other species--which has many consequences for humans, for
example,
> less beauty and vanished historical and scientific information on
> the intellectual level (no wilderness, many extinct species), and
> weaker societies (because there is no reservoir of biological DQ to
> help agriculture). Maximizing the number of humans has negative
> intellectual and social effects.
There' a mot here, "Total intelligence on Earth is a constant,
population is
increasing" :-). Jokes aside, I don't think that "maximizing humans" can
have a direct effect on intellect maximizing. And this independently by
the possible effects on the ecosystem. It would be the same also on an
eventual Moon colony, where no biologic life is under menace!
IMO it's a big limitation to see humans as "intellect owners", so that
as more people as more intellect. Just as for products, usually quantity
and quality are in conflict. The development of intellect goes along
with the quality of the social support to intellect. One example: it's
not good to have classrooms with hundreds of pupils. A good number is
about 20, I guess, or you'll have a Babel where no one can learn. The
reason for that is that the "social environment" needs to be effective
in order to support the "intellectual environment".
Of course, I agree also that maximizing humans has a negative role on
biology.
> b) Control the number of humans in some way, and preserve
> existing species' ability to be biologically dynamic. (Perhaps this
can
> this be justified in terms of "higher quality intellectual activity"
than
> would exist in (a).)
>
> Platt, Elephant and Marco have contributed. I hope I have summarized
your
> positions correctly!
> ---------
> PLATT concludes:
> The MOQ has no qualms, morally, for human intellect to destroy other
> species (trees, germs,
> flowers, butterflies, dolphin, baby harp seals or whatever) so long as
the
> levels which support intellect (inorganic, biological, social) remain
> stable and viable, i.e., are not weakened in the process.
Actually, this seems to be the MOQ message. But IMO we can see the role
of intellect from a different viewpoint.
>
> ELEPHANT (paraphrased and excerpted):
> Intellect is a necessary but not sufficient condition (for High
Quality
> behavior). Sure, intellect comes first. But how intellectual is it,
> actually, to chop off the branch of a tree, thirty foot up in the air,
> while sitting on that branch? One excellent place for humans to start
being
> intelligent is with the realisation that there is more to the world
than
> can ever be evident in our well-formed scientific hypotheses, and to
start
> behaving accordingly.
Yes. But let's try an hypothesis. If they will invent something able to
purify water and air and produce excellent food and so on..... with NO
NEED of any vegetables and animals, would it be right to destroy every
form of life but humans on the Earth just 'cause there's no risk for us?
(That is, is it right to chop off the branch once that we are not
sitting anymore on it?). Is it its utility as support to our life the
only reason to preserve the environment?
>
> DANILA:
> (Among other things) Elephant is saying that society has given
intellect a
> great deal of freedom, but certain Intellectual patterns damaging the
> biological basis of human life and we can't afford any more mistakes.
In
> other words, maximizing the amount of freedom available to intellect
may be
> morally good IN THEORY but "it is practice which counts, isn't it?
Because
> all this intellectualising has to come back to the aesthetic
continuum,
> right, or we'll never get off the hot stove."
>
> Marco seems to want maximum freedom in both directions, which is a
goal,
> not a prescription:
> MARCO: I tend to evaluate intra-level morality by the "diversity"
allowed
> to the below level (for example a society is more moral also if it's
able
> to preserve a greater bio-diversity), and by the degree of freedom
granted
> to the development of the above level (a society is more moral if it's
able
> to support the intellectual development among the citizens).
>
I'm not a politic, and I don't think there can be a recipe good for all
countries. So I just can offer the principle, on which basis it is
possible to build an infinite number of policies.
Preservation (of ecosystem, for example) could sound like a battle for
static quality. While development is obviously dynamic, and we know it
can cause the destruction of environment.
Firstly, I will offer a quote from Pirsig: "That's the whole thing: to
obtain static and Dynamic Quality simultaneously". I agree that the MOQ
holds that DQ is more moral than SQ, but this quote clearly points out
that excellence is both dynamic development and preservation of static
patterns. Simultaneously.
Secondly, I'll quote myself. Some months ago in MF we discussed "why
Dynamic is more moral than static?" I wrote:
> We can seek a better situation creating
> (static) value and by consequence increasing
> the total value of universe, using DQ as a sort of raw
> material. Or we can simply accept ready made values,
> but in this latter case we don't create anything, so we
> increase the system's entropy.
>
> That's why dynamic is more moral than static.
> [...]
> the only possible evolution directions are:
> 1) to entropy
> or
> 2) to freedom
>
> This is the starting point. You have to choose one direction
> and claim it's the right one. Then call it morality. I think we all
> choose the #2 (that is equate the evolution toward DQ and the
> morality) and we all agree that entropy is the evil, the end of
> everything, the death of universe.
>[...]
> The conclusion is that if we want to be dynamic we must
> beware of all manifestations of intellectual / cultural / biological
> / inorganic entropy.
>
> So biodiversity is moral, multiculturalism is moral,
> freethinking is moral.
Jonathan corrected me:
> I do not accept the "entropy vs. freedom" choice. These
> are the same, not contradictory. It is one of the paradoxes
> of apparently "orderly" evolution.
>
> The overall direction is always in the direction of greater
> freedom AND greater entropy.
I can agree that the overall direction is to freedom and to entropy, but
IMO, in the case of a choice, the dynamic (and moral) option is to help
the world to escape from entropy (or at least decelerate the entropic
direction) increasing the diversities, and, that's important, the
balance between the diversities. At every level.
I think we have not the right to eliminate the diversities,
independently by the direct eventual role of every single diversity in
supporting our intellect. At the contrary, preserving the diversities is
at the same time a static goal and a dynamic goal, as only in an
environment full of diversities there's the necessity of DQ seeking.
Evolution is the escape from static patterns, not necessarily their
destruction. Destroying the ecosystem is a mistake of evolution, not
evolution itself. It's the mistake of being not able "to obtain static
and Dynamic Quality simultaneously".
When Pirsig says that we are now in the intellectual era, he is meaning
that intellect has the role of "evolution leader". IMO, to be "evolution
leader" means exactly that intellect has the due to obtain SQ and DQ,
prerserve and evolve every level. And, as we are not sure that
intellect will have
this role forever, we have not the right to destroy the house before
leaving it to the next lodger.
> DANILA:
> I think there is a hint in Elephant's comment which, in conjunction
with
> the recent discussion about Art, may be helpful for our problem.
>
> I am not convinced that a fifth level can or will exist (who will have
the
> right to define it: the beauty police: "You must see beauty in this
> idea/painting/well-maintained motorcycle or you are intellectually
> defective"?).
> However, I agree that beauty (as a marker of excellence or
> RT) is the "upward" goal of Intellectual/Artistic activity. So if the
best
>
> Intellectual patterns are the most beautiful, we can criticize the
goodness
> of Intellectual patterns that are used to organize society according
to
> their beauty, once they have been applied.
>
Of course the fifth level is merely an SF novel. This possibility of
beauty is just an hypothesis, however it's IMO indubitable that, while
the role of intellect/art is to investigate reality, this "beauty"
intellect/art sometimes produces is something of different.
But let me say that the "beauty police" you suggest (and fear) has
nothing to do with a possible new level. It would be a sort of
intellectual control of beauty, and therefore something of immoral. The
right way to look at this scenario is IMO "Dear intellectual pattern,
you are not beautiful, so I don't need you".
> Obviously this raises the question "who decides, for a society, what
is
> beautiful?"
IMO, single persons.
> I submit that we already have a cadre of intellectuals devoted
> to beauty. Teaching people how to recognize beauty, and showing them
> historical examples to refine their taste, is the highest function of
> intellectual criticism and the liberal arts in the university.
If beauty is the high quality product of intellect, well, society has
nothing to do with it. The control of beauty (if possible) will be of
necessity very personal. Single persons free to produce/use
intellectual/artistic patterns according to the Quality/Beauty
produced/perceived. Just what happens when you purchase a compact disc.
The role of society should be just to support such beauty, not
interfering with the choices of people.
tks for Your attention
Marco
MD lurking mode: ON
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 - 16:00:56 BST