Hi there
Apologies for not getting this post completed sooner but I've had one or two other
pressing activities that have had to be dealt with.
This post is not as complete or as well thought out as I would have liked - in other
words it's a bit rushed - mainly due to the time available to myself and the period
remaining for this months discussion. But in view of the general lack of discussion
of the MoQ and Morals I thought it would be better to get something out rather
than wait any longer. I would appreciate general discussion of the points raised
here which may enable me to clarify some of the more vague aspects presented
and produce a more complete/comprehensive essay for the forum.
PIRSIG:
"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."
PIRSIG:
"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."
PIRSIG:
"Phaedrus was surprised by the conciseness of a commentary on 'Robert's Rules
of Order' that seemed to capture the whole thing in two sentences:
No minority has a right to block a majority from conducting the legal business of
the organization.No majority has a right to prevent a minority from peacefully
attempting to become a majority.
The power of those two sentences is that they create a stable static situation
where Dynamic Quality can flourish.
In the abstract, at least. When you get to the particular it's not so simple."
Chapter 17 - Lila.
JONATHAN:
"Pirsig thus differentiates between morality which is INTERlevel, and
value patterns which are INTRAlevel. Somehow, I don't think he really
means this."
HORSE:
"I think that there are a number of subtle issues involved here which may be
resolved by reference to a structured moral framework, which I believe should be
based on rights. It is not NECESSARILY the case that the structural framework of
the MoQ (Intellect, Society....) should ALWAYS indicate moral superiority, but
that in cases of conflict this is normally the case. Moral values and structures are
not reducible to mathematical symbolism and manipulation (as Mill found out with
his notion of a calculus of utility)."
Any moral system must contain the means by which to make a valid and
reasonable judgement of what is right and what is wrong. Obviously, many cases
will not be as clear cut as this but will be right or wrong to some degree. The
problem with most current/prevalent moral systems is that they exist in order to
benefit social entities and all too rarely, the biological or intellectual entity. Where
the individual is concerned, current moral systems based upon rights rarely seem
to take account of the seperate nature of the biological and intellectual aspects of
the individual. Add to this the reluctance to ascribe rights (let alone enforce them)
to the majority of entities on the planet (biological) and it is fairly obvious that the
moral systems that do exist are painfully inadequate. What is required is a
system that accounts for the needs of the entire planetary ecosystem. The
Metaphysics of Quality provides a viable means to do just this by elevating value
to its rightful place - that which precedes all else.
The means by which intra-level moral judgements are made at each level within
the (generally accepted) divisions of the MoQ (Inorganic, Biological, Social and
Intellectual) reflect the degree to which static value is maintained. Each level
resists change (dynamic quality) and those actions which bring about change are
considered immoral from with that particular level.
At the inorganic level those actions which increase the stability of matter are
judged as right (good, high quality) actions. Those actions which lead to a
decrease in the stability of matter are judged as wrong (bad, low quality) actions.
At the biological level those actions which lead to an increase in pleasure are
judged as right (good, high quality) actions whilst those that lead to a decrease in
pleasure are judged as wrong (bad, low quality) actions. Right actions are the
acquisition of food, provision of warmth and shelter and sexual activity are high
quality.
At the social level those actions that are intended to lead to an increase in the
well-being and security of social institutions are seen as right (good, high quality)
actions, whilst those that lead to a decrease in well-being and security are judged
as wrong (bad, low quality) actions. Right actions are those that are altruistic and
self-sacrificial. Actions which promote the greatest good for the greatest number
are high quality.
At the intellectual level those actions that lead to the confirmation and
consolidation of established knowledge and ideas are judged to be right (good,
high quality) actions, whilst those that seek to deny current knowledge and ideas
are judged to be wrong (bad, low quality) actions.
The establishment of increased order at each of the static levels is seen FROM
WITHIN THAT LEVEL to be moral. The tendency towards change, as a result of
Dynamic Quality, is inevitable although immoral from the static level point of view.
Within each level there will be a tendency towards establishment of seperate
factions due to Dynamic Quality. This will result in the following
Inorganic Compounds
Biological Individuals
Social Groups
Intellectual Theories
Each of these factions will compete for the resources which exist at each level in
order to sustain order and stability. Competition for resources will lead to conflict
where resources are limited by either location or general availability. From the
point of view of each of the seperate factions within each static level it is moral to
attempt to gain sufficient resources to sustain stability. At each level it is the right
of each faction to sustain itself and to defend itself against other factions. Right
action promotes stability. But right action can also promote conflict where
resources become limited. Dynamic quality resolves the conflict by promoting
change. From the point of view of the static level this change may not be change
for the better.
In addition to competition for resources at the same level, each faction may
require the resources of other levels, which is where the inter-level moral conflicts
will occur. These conflicts are:
Chaos vs. Inorganic patterns
Inorganic vs. Biological
Biological vs. Social
Social vs. Intellectual
Each of the 4 levels has emerged from the level below it by means of Dynamic
Quality. This is the fifth moral conflict (Static vs. Dynamic) which Pirsig refers to
in Lila and probably the most contentious. As explained above, the most moral
actions within a level promote and increase stability within that level. But in order
for the level to survive change may be necessary. Stability may occur for anything
from a nanosecond to millions of years, dependent on the level, the factions
involved, available resources etc. From the point of view of Dynamic Quality,
staticness or stagnation is immoral, but from the point of view of each static level
change is also associated with wrong or low quality action and thus immoral.
That said, change occurs regardless and new levels emerge and the factions that
are characteristic of each level seek stability as is their right. In order to achieve
stability factions at each of the levels, having emerged from the level below and
thus retaining the lower level, make use of the lower level in order to sustain
themselves. It is also the case that by their actions, factions of a lower level can
threaten the stability of higher levels and must at times be constrained to act in
such a way as to minimize the damage that can be caused to higher levels.
It is also the case that the most serious damage that can occur at any level is
reversion to the patterns of the lower level. It is this form of damage - negation of
the static latch - that drives factions of a particular level to act morally. By failing
to act morally at one level, reversion to the lower level is inevitable. By acting
morally, stability is increased. By increasing stability value is increased.
In this way biological factions avoid returning to the inorganic level by finding
shelter, reproducing, eating etc. Social factions avoid reversion to biological
patterns by making laws, social conventions, indoctrination of the young into
correct behavior etc. Intellectual factions avoid reversion to social patterns by
means of establishing rules of reason - scientific method, logic, mathematics,
philosophy etc. - which are independent of social patterns.
At each level, the means by which stability is maintained is heavily dependent
upon co-operation with the preceding level. Intellectual stability is maintained by
using the mechanisms of the social level - communication - in order to spread
ideas and knowledge. Social stability is maintained by violence, the threat of
violence, incarceration, coercion and propaganda etc. Biological stability is
maintained mainly by chemical action of conversion of organic matter into heat,
energy/mass etc.
That's enough of the general background for now as I don't want this to turn into a
book. The above has to be applied in some way in order to provide some simple
moral rules.
It has been expressed a number of times on this forum that it is moral for a higher
level to dominate a lower level but immoral for a lower level to attempt to dominate
a higher level. This is true to an extent, but only to the extent that it is necessary
for the higher level to avoid reversion to the lower level or to reasonably sustain
itself.
Where a higher level abuses this domination and the rights of a lower level, it is
likely to damage itself and precipitate a reversion to a lower level. Factions at
each level have the right to exist independently from other levels and pursue those
activities which are moral as long as those activities do not interfere with the
legitimate purposes of another level. The legitimate pursuit of pleasure and
avoidance of pain at the biological level is moral where this does not threaten the
stability of the higher level. The use of drugs, killing, sexual activity are all
reasonable and acceptable where they are not likely to damage the social level.
The greatest good for the greatest number, duty, rights of the family etc. are all
perfectly moral where they do not threaten intellectual values. Where laws are
created to contain the excesses of biology but not threaten or curtail legitimate
biological pursuits this is moral. Where laws prevent legitimate biological activity
or where laws, ( and the resultant means of enforcement -violence, incarceration
etc.) are used to curtail intellectual activity this is immoral.
I know there is a lot more that could be written and that the above is far from
complete by any stretch of the imagination (waddaya expect for a few evenings
hurried typing), but this should be enough to instigate some discussion on the
topic of the month.
Fire away.
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
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