Jonathan-
Wow. I really like the idea of Patterns of Value actually being patterns
of evaluation. I also think you hit on major theme when you talked about
same-level evalutaion. Biological vs. Biological - Inorganic vs.
Inorganic. I hear people use the example like the rape victim and talk
about how for the rapist the situation is of high biological quality and
for the victim its of low biological quality, but this makes the whole
thing entirely relativistic... which completely defeats the purpose of
having a "moral" hierarchy to begin with. I'm going to start thinking
about same-level evaluations. Thanks for the thought.
Rick
At 02:30 PM 11/2/98 +0200, you wrote:
>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
>
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