THE Q:
"What do the patterns of higher quality have that those of destruction,
decay and disorder don't?"
BARD:
Having read Rog's posts, I am reminded of the subjectivity of the words
decay, destruction, etc...
ROG:
I am not following you. It seems destruction and decay are pretty objective.
Are you are getting to the issue of relative decay or destruction (where one
pattern benefits as another is destroyed)? Certainly I understand that this
exists, and I offer that it is BETTER if neither is destroyed, and it is BEST
if the two can not only not harm each other, but also cooperate together for
even higher quality. (Quality across the greatest span and depth.) Would you
agree?
BARD:
It seems that it is the intention that precedes an action that determines
whether the outcome is of Quality.
ROG:
And you thought the original Q was subjective? :^)
OK, I will play along....So what then are good intentions? To rephrase the
Q, "what separates good intentions from intentions of destruction, decay and
disorder?"
To be honest though, I think your intentions argument may fall flat in
places. Wanting to do good and causing serious destruction is still of poor
quality. The goodness of intentions is that it reflects that we can and do
influence reality. When we engage in war with the intent of minimizing
destruction and trying to end the war as soon as possible, we are intending
to be less destructive. If we are successful in our aims, higher quality can
be achieved.
Good intentions and bad results is indeed high quality intent and low quality
result. Bad intentions and accidental good results is indeed low quality
intent and high quality outcome. Good intent and good results is very moral
indeed. High quality acroos the greatest span and depth!
As for your specific examples, your hunter is actually a difference in intent
between hunting for biological quality (food) and social quality
(status/prowess). In either case, the prey is dead. What makes this moral or
immoral?
As mentioned above, your War argument for compassion, minimizing punitive
measures and ending conflict implicitly supports the Q. You are arguing that
these are harmful to higher quality. So, what do the patterns of higher
quality have that those of destruction, decay and disorder don't?
You then go on to mention that "it is a Quality event when the cells of the
human body decay each seven years to make room for newer cells." It is? Is
it the decay and the bold, compassionate sacrifice of these little suckers
that is of quality? Or is it the regenerativeness?
The same argument goes for "revitalizing the environment" when dead,
destroyed, temporarily disordered creatures are recycled into patterns of
higher quality. The decaying isn't the quality event, the ensuing
reorganization is. Right?
BARD:
Even the bacteria and viruses that cause disease, often strengthen the host
that survives and provide immunity through evolution to his descendants.
ROG:
Careful here, you are mischaracterizing evolution as Lamarkian. The point
you make though is that forces of disorder and decay and destruction are the
driving force of higher quality. A point Pirsig makes and that I strongly
agree with. (though it needs to be extended to the social sphere carefully to
avoid Social Darwinism)
BARD:
However cancer raises the question of intention at the cellular level. The
cancer cell seems hell-bent on an all consuming mission, without reference to
the whole, interested only in the self, and eventually destroying both its
host and, thereby, itself. It has lost its compassion. It was not content to
live in harmony. Does this mean some cells have compassion while others do
not?
ROG:
I would argue that it shows the limitations of the intention argument when
overextended to nonintentional (or at least borderline nonintentional)
entities. (See 'are atoms aware" discussion from last year). Cancer is an
example of a cell regenerating out of control temporarily generating new
cells but at the long range cost of destroying billions of cells and higher
level emegent patterns of the animal.
Overall, I see mucho quality in your passion and compassion model. Let me
ask though, is compassion destructive, decadent and disordering? What is
compassion?
Rog
PS -- I REALLY like the compassion/passion angle. Thanks very, very much. I
will use this one in the future.
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 - 16:01:42 BST