Hi Diana, Xcto@aol.com and Squad,
>Jonathan wrote
>> 2. The (moral) conflicts WITHIN a level are resolved at a higher
level.
>> The decision who should eat first is a SOCIAL decision. Democracy,
>> courts and the press use INTELLECTUAL patterns for deciding on SOCIAL
>> issues.
>
Diana wrote:-
>This is very clearly put and resolves the moral conflicts
>that the MoQ seems to present. For example from a
>rapist's point of view his actions seem moral, ie biologically
>dynamic. However from the victim's point of view the
>event is definitely low biological quality. ...
Thanks for the endorsement Diana. I will wear it as a badge of pride :-)
Xcto@aol.com :-
>This cant be said any better.
>
>We need to talk more about the interface between the levels. One
question,
>how much influence does the intellect really have over the levels that
are
>below it other than social? Does the intellect have any jurisdiction
over
>biology?[snip]
Diana:-
>Speaking as a member I'm amused that you said the
>press use intellectual values to judge social values.
Call it wishful thinking:-) Actually, I was alluding to Pirsig's mention
of a "free press" as an Intellectual value.
Diana:-
>Could you elaborate Jonathan, after all you've just
>proven that Pirsig lists these five moral codes in
>more than one place in LILA, that would suggest
>to me that he had thought them through pretty thorougly.
I'm sure he has, but his comments in correspondence to quoted by Anthony
suggest that Pirsig himself admits to some difficulties. Much as I
admire Pirsig, I think that we are going to have to resolve the problems
without Pirsig (unless he chooses to involve himself in the Squad, or
publish another novel).
I think that my explanation of higher levels arbitrating conflicts at
lower levels is just a start. I now realise that the opposite can also
happen. Lightening can "choose" to strike one tree rather than another.
That's inorganic arbitration of the biological level, the basis of
Darwinian "natural selection".
This operates also at other levels. Society chooses *which* intellectual
patterns it values. Who is more popular this year, Keynes or Freedman?
Will Pirsig's new book make it onto the best-seller list?
We also have biological evaluation of social patterns. Am I more
comfortable at a rock concert, or sitting enjoying a meal in a good
restaurant?
Finally, we must also recognise same-level evaluation, e.g. chemical
reaction (inorganic-inorganic) or sexual attraction
(biological-biological).
I'm going to think a little more about whether or not there is a direct
interaction between separated levels e.g. can intellect directly
evaluate biological patterns, or can society evaluate the inorganic
level. I think the answer is YES, but want to clarify my thoughts on
this some more.
But my main awakening comes when I realise that Patterns of Value are in
fact Patterns of EVALUATION. They exist and have value by virtue of
their interactions. They evaluate and are evaluated at the same time,
simultaneously subject and object.
Now to come back to the issue of whether the level hierarchy is also a
moral hierarchy, we need to readdress the question of what the levels
are. Most of us (including Pirsig) have taken an "atomist" view of this.
Intellect is built up using social patterns, built from biological
patterns derived from inorganic building blocks. To put it another way,
ALL patterns are ensembles of the simplest inorganic building blocks.
The levels are "waves" of organisation (the levels) which help us
understand the structure. For example, it is easier to build a computer
from ready circuit boards carrying preassembled integrated circuits
rather than start with raw silicon and copper.
I agree with DONNY that:-
<<<
As I view it, Poincare's rule of "conventionalism" still applies to the
MoQ. I
do not believe that the 4 ststic levels are "given," or "out there." I
think
this is a system not unlike euclideian geomitry. Their are numerous
ways we
could divide it up. The shape the 4 or 5 or 10 levels take all depends
on how
we make cuts w/ our analytic knife.
>>>
This makes the levels sound arbitrary, which is hardly a sound basis for
a moral precedence based on them!
On the other hand, the levels are REAL ensembles of REAL patterns. The
arbitrariness comes from deciding WHICH patterns get included in the
ensemble.
It is the large size of the higher level ensembles which give moral
authority. It is more moral to consider the overall needs of a town of
50,000 individuals than the needs of just one person.
Xcto@aol.com :-
>Was the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
>Nagasaki an intellectual or social decision? Was it moral?
It was moral if the cost was less than a long bloody protraction of the
war. It was immoral if it ultimately led to a nuclear holocaust some
decades (or centuries) later. Thankfully, it's so far so good:-).
Morality has to take account of as many relevant issues as possible.
That takes judgement, to identify the relevant issues.
But the ultimate morality is an ensemble of ALL patterns - the ONE.
(Note that one can substitute "reality" for "morality" in the previous
two sentences)
Jonathan
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