Greetings all,
I've been following and enjoying the Logical conclusions thread, and all its
many spinoffs. But there is an issue which I think it would be worth
focussing in on, and seeing if (highly unlikely) we might get some sort of
consensus on what the MoQ says/implies.
Pirsig talks about there being some 'machine code' which functions as the
crossover point between different levels. This has been discussed a fair
bit, already, but I would like to argue (in unoriginal fashion) that the
foundation for the social level is the existence of social law. A paradigm
case would be the ten commandments, but there are lots of others. Seems to
me that Moses in his forty year sojourn in Sinai came up with a basic rule
of law which allowed the community to flourish, and certainly the second
half can be interpreted as applying a strait-jacket to reckless biological
impulses.
That's worth articulating a bit. The existence of a social code (with the
enforcement to back it up) allows a society to move forward to a higher
level of evolution. It means that the participants in that society don't
have to spend all their time trying to preserve their biological patterns,
and can concentrate on other things. Where there is no social code, and no
enforcement, then the restraints on biological behaviour are lessened, and
consequently, to take one example, the strongest ape gets all the resources,
and although for that ape things have improved, overall the welfare in the
society is lower. Where there is a social code, then there is room for
creative co-operation and specialisation, and all sorts of good things
follow from that. It seems to me that no society can actually exist without
an enforced social code.
I think that so far, this is reasonably straightforward, and, I hope,
comparatively uncontentious. The interesting thing, however, is that I
believe this model can be applied in international relations.
One of the most dynamic and morally significant events of the twentieth
century was the establishment of the European Union, in that, for the first
time, independent nation states voluntarily submitted to the authority of a
non-state institution. The eventual fate of the EU has yet to be
established, but whether or not it becomes another state actor in its own
right, it has already achieved something remarkable. This was, of course,
born out of the experience of 1914-1945, where each state tried to establish
dominance over the others - each state tried to be the biggest ape. What I
think the 'European mentality' (if I can use such a term) discerned was that
this was a destructive path, and now the European nations are not concerned
to preserve their own integrity against their neighbours (their biological
patterns, if you like). In just the same way as a group of people can
flourish more where there is an agreed social code, so too the nations in
Europe agreed that sometimes they wouldn't get their own way. In the long
run they would benefit from the pooling of sovereignty involved, etc etc.
So, I would say that the development of the EU is a tremendous DQ
breakthrough, comparable to the development of a social code like the ten
commandments. (Which isn't to say that the EU is the only way in which this
can be done, or that the EU will necessarily succeed, only that it is a
tremendously high-quality innovation, and a force for good in the world).
Now, many will disagree with that, but if this is right, then it puts some
of our present geo-political arguments in a broader MoQ based context. Let
me focus this into a single question: is the government of the USA morally
justified in refusing to accept the establishment of an international court?
If the existence of an enforced social code is the basis for the
establishment of an entire MoQ level, could not an enforceable international
law also function as the basis for a radically improved international
environment?
And, as the much more contentious corollary to this - if it would be right,
and a high quality innovation, to have an enforceable international court of
justice (for trying war criminals etc) - isn't the US government's refusal
to support its establishment simply the equivalent of the dominant ape's
resistance to the establishment of a social code? So that the government of
the USA is acting on the basis of (the international equivalent of)
biological quality, and the other apes/nations will actually need to come
together to make sure that the big ape doesn't prevent the establishment of
such a highly DQ innovation?
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:38 BST