From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Mon Oct 07 2002 - 16:55:24 BST
Steve (that's me) writes:
>
> Tell me if you think I have it right. Maybe someone can rewrite this thing
> for me. I think the progression would go something like this:
>
> I. (I'm probably missing a first stage where inorganic matter is more free
> than I dunno what.)
>
>
> II. Animals are more free than rocks from the inorganic bonds of natural
> forces in that they can move under their own power though they are obviously
> not really free of forces like gravity. Animals are still in bondage to
> Natural Law just as much as rocks are. But an animal can jump up in a sort
> of temporary defiance of gravity and is in this way more free than a rock.
> The one who throws the rock must be more free than the flying rock.
>
> Morality at the organic level has survival as its highest value.
> Survival might considered merely maintaining organic-ness since any organic
> entity will eventually revert to an inorganic state. Reproduction is
> important as a way of ensuring continued survival and maintaining this
> higher level of evolution.
>
> Organic life attains this freedom of movement at the cost of new
> biological restraints. Animals need food, water, shelter, and the
> like--things that rocks don't need at all. To respond to these needs
> societies developed as a third stage of evolution.
>
>
> III. Societies enable humans to free themselves from biological
> constraints to a degree by making food, water, and shelter more accessible
> and by finding cures for diseases, but the development of society has
> resulted in a new way to be in bondage. People can be bound by one another
> and by society as a whole. A society's morality will restrain some
> biologically moral behavior in favor of a sort of "greater good" of
> fulfilling other biological needs. But a society's morality will also
> include morals designed to preserve the society itself in its current state
> since by its own existence it is presumed to work. Societies evolve to
> serve themselves. From a society's perspective, human beings exist to serve
> society. Morals at the societal level become the survival instinct of
> society which wants to preserve itself as a still higher level of evolution
> over individual biological beings.
>
> Since humans are biological entities before they are societal entities,
> they may be forced to destroy a society that is not providing biological
> benefits that outweigh the biologically moral behavior that is prevented by
> society. The result of such an attack will likely be a new society that
> provides a better balance between biological needs and the society's
> tendency to serve itself.
>
>
> IV. Societies can also be attacked "from above" as a fourth level of
> evolution is represented by intellect. A morality that values individual
> humans over society that exists to break the societal constraints on
> freedom. To be honest, I don't really understand what is meant by this
> intellectual level. I understand that intellectual morality would include
> rights, but I don't know what else its morality includes and I don't know
> what Pirsig means by intellect.
>
>
> To summarize how I think these levels work...
> Complete freedom is the ultimate good, my ultimate goal, and my most natural
> desire. I become free of an inorganic immobile state of being through my
> biological aspect of existence. I become free of the bonds imposed by my
> biological needs through the social aspect of my existence. I become free
> of the bonds imposed by society through the intellectual aspect of my
> existence.
>
>
> I am never made completely free of the bonds of the previous levels through
> the next levels while new restrictions on freedom are always introduced.
> In a paradoxical way, with the addition of each new level, there is less
> freedom. Freedom actually gets harder and harder to attain through this
> evolutionary "progress." In a way, rocks have complete biological, social,
> and intellectual freedom. They have all the food, shelter, and rights they
> need. They just donšt have inorganic freedom.
>
> The rock might get squished into a different kind or rock or eroded out of
> existence, but a rock is completely free to express it's rock-ness so long
> as it exists, while a tree that is not grounded in good soil cannot fully
> express its tree-ness. How much harder still is it for a human to fully
> express herself?
>
> It seems to make sense to rank these levels in terms of capacity for freedom
> for self-expression rather than the amount of restriction on freedom. With
> each level, quality of existence is increased as measured by an increased
> capacity for freedom that may or may not be attained by individual rocks,
> plants, dogs, and people.
I know that everyone is busy and under no obligation to guide a newbie, but
if you could find it in your hearts...
Since no one directly responded to my description of the of the evolutionary
progression, I still don't know if it is...(I'll even make it multiple
choice)...
A. close enough and therefore not worth commenting on,
B. so far from any understanding of moq that it is beyond help.
C. 42
Steve
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:54 GMT