Dear Marco & others,
Why are people always trying to conclude threads in which I have hardly had
the opportunity to participate? I would appreciate slower discussions (Rog
can testify to that)!
I haven't lost hope (as you have, Marco, in your 2/2 16:09 +0100 posting)
that there is another conclusion possible than 'that there is no agreement
about the intellect's "better"'; if not now, than in the future if we
continue this thread.
My try:
I suggested 12/2 8:32 +0100:
'The lowest level of Dynamic Quality that is secured by the type
of static latch that is specific to a Q-level can be described as
a 'moral principle'. ...
We should be careful however to distinguish between the LOWEST
level of DQ that is secured by a static Q-level and the HIGHEST
level of DQ it can reach. ...
I also think it is useful to distinguish between DESCRIPTIVE and
PRESCRIPTIVE laws of morality. It seems to me that the whole
concept of 'law' (as a way to describe a morality) presupposes
that we are looking at things from the intellectual level.'
At the lowest level of DQ that is secured by a static Q-level, that level
has barely come into existence. Its patterns of values can only hope to be
stable, to be a firm latch, by being of service to the lower level.
For the first 2 levels I'm fine with both Marco's 'Something is better than
Nothing' & 'Alive is better than Dead' (17/2 15:21 +0100) and with Rog's 'It
is better to last' & 'It is better to adapt' (23/2 13:32 -0500).
For the 3rd level, I agree with David B. (17/2 16:31 -0700) that Marco &
Rog's 'Together is better than Alone' & 'It is better together' lead into
trouble by suggesting a contest between individual and group. As an
alternative I'd suggest 'Proven practices are better than unproven ones' or
'It is better to do that which worked before'. This encompasses both
individual habits and group practices that are copied by those who feel they
'belong'. This principle creates both stable patterns of individual behavior
and stable, recognizable groups.
The main issue however is what moral principle founds the 4th level.
I agree again with David B. that Marco's suggestion of 'Individuality' (as
better than mass/conformity) is (still) too suggestive of (but I agree,
Marco, not necessarily implying) a contest between individual and group.
Contests between individual and group are internal to the 3rd level: they
are usually conflicts about whether certain practices have proven to work or
not if (only) an individual has tested them.
The 4th level of course 'breaks free' to some extent from the 3rd level. It
consists of patterns formed by exceptions to 3rd level patterns of values.
It consists of values that go beyond proven practices, both individual and
group ones. It is not individuality that characterized those
beyond-social-values.
I therefore prefer Rog's 'It is better to understand'. I think Rog rightly
claims (2/2 11:59 -0500) that his formulation applies (real broadly...) to
the 'humanist' principles of 'individual rights, self-awareness, ethics,
freedom, creativity' etc. as well as to the 'rational' principles of '"law"
making, understanding, thinking, reason,
science, rationality, objectivity, truth.....' etc.. The essential
difference between 3rd and 4th level seems to me to be reflection upon
formerly habitual and unconscious practices. A slight improvement upon Rog's
formulation might therefore be: 'It is better to reflect before you act'...
New, consciously/intellectually based (both 'rational' and 'humane'),
practices can be said to be based in 'understanding' what you are doing and
why you are doing it. Some of them imply understanding the inorganic or
biological patterns of values that they are using or adapting to social
benefit. Others imply understanding the social patterns of values (unwritten
law) that they are trying to 'service' and improve (in this first phase, in
which the 4rd level has barely come into existence). Written, prescriptive
law is developed by reflection upon unwritten law, group habits and mores,
weeding out what is 'irrational' and reinforcing and improving upon what is
'rational'.
Remember the FOLDOP definitions you provided 26/11 18:49 +0100 (emphasis
added)...:
'"morality" refers to the first-order beliefs and PRACTICES about good and
evil by means of which we guide our behavior. Contrast with ethics, which is
the second-order, REFLECTIVE, critical and normative consideration of our
moral beliefs and practices.
Ethics: branch of philosophy concerned with the evaluation of human
conduct.'
In order to triumph over the 3rd level and to reach its HIGHEST level of DQ,
the 4th level has to become real critical of 3rd level practices: It does so
by formulating principles, (written) laws, responsibilities, duties and ...
rights. The best summary of that HIGHEST level the 4th level can reach is
for me Jonathan's 'right to dignity' (20/2 00:25 +0200). I'll return to that
in my next posting in the 'Is Society Making Progress?'-thread.
'Laws of nature', 'the law of the jungle' and 'the Law' are in my
interpretation the HIGHEST level the 1st, 2nd and 3rd level can reach...
formulated from a 4th level point of view (and therefore with negative
connotations).
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 16:01:56 BST