Bruce, Platt, Drose, Rick, Jonathan and Squad
Welcome Bruce. For too long the Lila Squad has been like Baptists arguing with
Methodists whether God exists. Finally, a true skeptic.
Bruce says:
<<<<<<<"The first four codes could at a stretch, be claimed to be reasonable,
i.e. based on reason (though I agree with comments others have made about how
it seems relativistic and there are too many factors to consider). however
the last one Dynamic vs. static, is quite obviously not reasonable. The whole
point about DQ is that you can’t reason it out. The Dynamic-Static code is
Pirsig’s wild card which gets him out of tricky situations........">>>>>>>>>
Platt and I had a related discussion last month on DQ as "purpose". If the
universe is progressing toward DQ, but DQ can’t really be defined, then what
exactly is this purpose? The thread was titled "Defining the Indefinite
Infinite." Bruce seems to say something similar with this "wild card". DQ is
somewhat undefinable, yet Pirsig suggests using it as the measure of
morality.... This seems to be pretty fuzzy.
Platt mentioned similar concerns in his reply to Bruce:
<<<<<<"Outcomes of "reasonable" decisions at this level [social] are less
predictable and can easily backfire...……..But it’s at the intellectual level
where reason reigns supreme that things can really go haywire. Taken alone,
reason can justify any decision you make including not making a
decision.">>>>>>>
DROSE recently wrote:
<<<<<<"There is a relativism involved in this thread that I find unsettling.
How can we absolutely state that any particular decision is more or less moral
than any other decision? By deduction? Or by hindsight?">>>>>>>>>>
Although I disagree with Bruce’s final conclusion of the value of MOQ at
resolving moral dilemmas, I agree with many of the concerns voiced by him,
Platt, Drose and others. What I hope to do is apply a broader context to
these problems and suggest how the problem of relative morality and the
indeterminateness of DQ is actually the MOQ’s genius. The "problem"
contributes toward the creation of the levels themselves, and is the driving
force propelling us toward DQ.
To start out, let me define "morality". Rather than write it myself, I
borrowed from Walter’s recent awesome post. (Forgive the paraphrasing
Walter.)
Walter paraphrase--<<<The morality of a static pattern is determined by the
potential the pattern has in letting DQ be realized to the maximal and BEST
extent. The stability of the pattern is important because the pattern’s
ability to repeat itself longer in time allows it to contribute more to
higher DQ. The degree of morality of an event is the possibility that DQ, as
a consequence of this event, is optimized over time.>>>>>
Using the above as a foundation to determine relative morality, below are some
perspectives on morality within and between levels:
IMMORALITY-- When a lower level pattern dominates a higher level pattern it is
"immoral." Death, hurricane Mitch’s destruction, Pompeii, plagues,
intellectual censorship, etc. However, as Diana mentions, freedom from
dominance below becomes the dynamic driver toward the advancement of the
patterns. The problem.....immorality .....leads to patterns which aren’t more
static. They are forced to become more dynamic. That which doesn’t destroy
us makes us stronger.
RELATIVE MORALITY BETWEEN PATTERNS-- This occurs when same-level patterns
interact, such as competing theories, murder, war etc. That which is the most
complex, evolved , long lasting, repeatable, and dynamic is the most moral.
However, there is sometimes an even more moral possibility...…………
PURE? MORALITY BETWEEN PATTERNS-- Same-level patterns don’t have to destroy
or harm each other to advance dynamically. Patterns at different levels don’t
always have to either. Symbiosis, domestication, cultivation and exchange,
are dynamic and moral ways to advance both patterns. Rather than just kill
each other, they can team up.
This is where the higher value patterns emerged (at least partially), and it
explains why the higher levels are more moral (again, partially). Biology
didn’t destroy inorganic matter, it shaped carbon and proteins into
replicating patterns. The VALUES are at odds with each other between levels,
but the PATTERNS don’t always have to be. Similarly, society was formed
partially to eliminate and replace certain aspects of relative morality
between individuals. Intellect can offset the more destructive aspects of
societal opposition such as war and genocide. THE HIGHER LEVELS ARE THE
BEGINNING OF A SOLUTION TO THE RELATIVE MORALITY BELOW. Relative values
contribute to the very emergence of the values above. It is now time for the
intellectual level to continue the relay.
MORALITY BETWEEN LEVELS-- Because the higher level is more complex and
dynamic, it is moral to dominate and, if absolutely necessary, destroy a lower
level pattern to maintain the higher level solution. The higher level pattern
opposes the base values below it partially to preserve the greatest dynamic
pattern complexity below. From here, the higher level patterns take off and
develop patterns of their own that can become seemingly disconnected from
those below. Though dominance of a lower level is always moral, destruction
of lower levels isn’t necessarily so. Pirsig illustrates this in the current
harm that intellect is causing to society in the West.. The reason these types
of intractions are of low moral value is that they destroy the foundation on
which they are built.
Going back to Walter’s definition, the most moral course isn’t to sacrifice
citizens for society, or ecosystems for civilization, or social order for
personal freedom. As Walter reveals, the most moral course is to preserve and
advance the most overall dynamic patterns at all levels over all time.
RELATIVE MORALITY AND METAPHYSICS-- Metaphysics is an intellectual pattern
describing reality. Any accurate description of reality needs to capture the
moral ambiguity between patterns. Furthermore, the MOQ recognizes that
mistakes (intellectual immorality) can lead to advancement of the intellectual
level itself!
Yes, reason often leads to mistakes. However, when this does happen, the
intellectual values of truth, adaptability and testability should allow us to
identify our moral mistakes, correct them, learn from them, and, hopefully,
not repeat them. The MOQ is our "guidebook" to framing moral problems and
therefore understanding and resolving them for maximum long term DQ. Every
moral problem didn’t get answered the day Lila was written. All we got was a
better way to understand problems and to dynamically advance in our ability to
resolve whatever the universe throws our way.
Bruce, long answer, but the MOQ is the clearest and most beautiful
intellectual solution to admittedly complex morality problems. One of the
first steps to a solution is to truly recognize the size of the problem. The
intellectual level allows us to improve our moral compass over time and to
dynamically advance. Perhaps relative morality is the problem, but then,
dynamic intellect and the MOQ will be the solution. When you put it in this
light, moral dilemmas don’t become the weakness of the MOQ, they become a
driving force propelling it dynamically forward. From an intellectual level,
moral dilemmas become the "evil" forcing us to evolve.
Let me end with a Jonathan quote:....."The ultimate morality is an ensemble of
ALL patterns - the ONE"
Roger
PS—Fintan, in case you are wondering, I typed this with my socks off! (It's a
start)
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 - 16:02:39 BST