WALTER IS SORRY FOR NOT COMING UP WITH A GOOD HEADER FOR HIS POST ;-)
Keith, Horse and Squad,
The ongoing discussion about the different levels would be very un-MoQ-like, if it would end in a
being right or wrong-scene. In the end everyone would feel misunderstood. There's a time for
conflict, but one also has to know when to stop. I for one get a little irritated, because I think
conflictuous-writing drifts us away from the core ? somehow taking firm stands always does.
Furthermore because of my English (I have to use a dictionary!), i feel like a sitting duck not
able to compete ;-)
Keith, I loved your post bringing it back to the topic (I too started a post named 'Back to
morality', but can leave that unsend now). The approach you choose, the evolution and so the
evolution of value (what I call bottom-up) is exactly what I have in mind. Below I want to expand
on your thoughts.
Horse, I missed your input and welcome you back. About last month discussion, I hope your
able and willing to respond to my last post on this topic, the one just after your and Rogers' last
post.
Keith writes:
>While we posit a continuous process of evolution, we notice certain disjunctions. We see
>whole new "worlds" emerging at certain points in history. We can conveniently classify these
>worlds into Inorganic, Biological, Social, and Intellectual patterns. Each of these worlds is in
>some way fundamentally different >from the other (understood in different terms, described
>with different rules) but still has a matter-of-fact evolutionary relationship with the others.
And
>Since the universe is composed of value, the evolutionary progress of the universe is also its
>moral progress. Each successive level, therefore, takes moral precedence over the preceding
>levels.
This is exactly what I ment, writing about morality being a continuum in which there appears to
be a direction towards more complex (I prefer: higher order) patterns (OK we already knew that).
There are numereous moral-levels, but in this perspective the 4 levels are the more important
static patterns in this continuum, because they represent the big steps among the small steps
in the 'evolution' towards optimalization of DQ.
About your (great!) chronological summary I only want to adress something you're probably well
aware of.
You place the levels (Anorganic, Biology, Social and Intellectual) in the chronological summary,
according to there being 'a single point in time and a single location in space when and where
the emergent behavior that characterizes each level first appears'.
For the morality-discussion that can follow using this map, I think it's important to mention that
the chronological time-line is a 2D axis, whereas to be more precize the forming of static
patterns (including the levels) has to be put in a 3D map. For example: the biological level of
humans was formed way after the social level of the first dinosaurs. Right now I don't see why a
specific determination of the very first time a level arised, can help the morality-discussion.
Maybe you can fill me in on this one.
The reason for not using a 2D map lies in what I call the importance of 3D-thinking, which I find
difficult to explain. 3D-thinking is what MoQ is all about, 2D-thinking is what SOM is all about.
In 3D-thinking 1 + 1 = 3. When one uses 3D-thinking, it's not possible to forget that all is
formed out of lower static value patterns ? that we are part of an evolution from value to higher
order value, from the good to the better.
Our thinking is our tool in metafysics, just like we can use our feelings and intuition. We can
expand the working of this thinking-tool, by trying to think in the same way to that what we are
thinking about.
In my last post I brought up the distinction between bottom-up and top-down morality and I
linked it to intrinsic teleology (Aristoteles, RMP, Whitehead) vs external teleology (almost all
others). I still want to expand on this thought but am going to do that in a future post.
dtchgrtngs
Walter
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