In a message dated 10/31/98 11:36:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
diana@hongkong.com writes:
ch 13
>"First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of
>biological life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes
>that established the supremacy of the social order over biological life
->- conventional morals -- proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery,
>theft and the like. Third, there were moral codes that established the
>supremacy of the intellectual order over the social order -- democracy,
>trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Finally there's
>a fourth Dynamic morality which isn't a code. He supposed you could call
>it a 'code of Art' or something like that, but art is usually thought of
>as such a frill that that title undercuts it importance. The morality of
>.the brujo in Zuni -- that was Dynamic morality."
...
>"We're at last dealing with morals on the basis of reason. We can now
>deduce codes based on evolution that analyze moral arguments with
>greater precision than before."
>These are bold claims indeed, but are they justified?
Good point Diana, I myself would say that its justified because I have
already valued the position. But to most people there is no separation of the
social and the intellectual points of view; a social view is just as justified
as an intellectual one. You can say that it's wrong to burn a national flag
on social grounds or that it is a freedom issue on the intellectual one.
Right now, the intellectual side is at the front, but all it takes is the
appointment of a few supreme court justices and it can all change in a few
generations. And let's not get into the social/intellectual fence in politics
in general. The more you think about it, it will take a revolution for the
MOQ to take hold in any group (like quantum physicists(possible), or
philosophers (haha)) let alone the population of the whole world. The only
other way is a several hundred year trek as the intellectual view took.
But back to the your question. I think that most people do agree that
thinking and reasoning is above the social level (at least to most members in
the USA). The example of this is in the freedom issue (ie it is more
important to have individual freedom than social restriction as in flag
burning, abortion, religion choice, etc.) The problem is that the social
level continues to use the intellectual to push its point of view, often
beating the intellectual point of view (see MOQ encyclopedia under the value
of book burning (who came up with that great idea?)). At least intellect is
still winning.
This is really an interesting thing because the reason that people have this
belief is almost purely social and not from their own intellectual
observations. It seems a real social static quality because people don't
hierarchically overlay an intellectual level over the social knowledge that
they have. Our education system reinforces this (think of college -
humanities, sciences - separate but equal). Can we ever justify the MOQ
evolutionary hierarchy? The battle of Society and Intellect is not over and
until there is a decisive defeat of Social Quality, it may be impossible to
justify or "sell the MOQ" and thus make this idea as unpractical and
unvaluable. On the otherhand, the strength of the MOQ is still it's powerful
reasoning and dynamics, and it needs to be introduced to as many fields of
knowledge and debate as possible. MOQ does not have much of a chance of
willing if it isn't in the running.
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:38 BST