Hi Roger and Squad
Great post. Apologies if my comments about the general lack of discussion
offended. They weren't aimed at you as I hadn't received you post at the time.
I agree with the majority of what you say but there a couple of points which I
would like to discuss.
> BELOW IS A MODEL OF RELATIONSHIPS OR INTERACTIONS BETWEEN PATTERNS
> ¨ The left axis reflects the dominant pattern, the bottom axis reflects the
> non-dominant pattern. That is, the rows dominate the columns. If this doesn’t
> transmit right, I will resend separately …….. it is crucial to this post!
>
>
> MORALITY CHART
> Dominant
> Value
>
> Intellect……Computer Medicine Democracy Truth/LIES
>
> Social….. House Priest Marry/WAR
> CENSOR
>
> Biolog….. Nutrients Breed/KILL PLAGUE DEAD
> BOHR
>
> Inorg…… Matter/CHAOS DEATH POMPEII LOST IPoV
>
> [ Inorganic] [ Biological ] [ Social ] [ Intellect ]
>
>
> Dominated Value
>
The above wasn't something I disagree with, I'm just not quite clear about it. It
looks interesting and useful so would you be prepared to expand on it a bit.
You've made some comments below but I'd appreciate some more detail.
> MORALITY IS DEFINED AS THE ADVANCEMENT TOWARD MORE COMPLEX AND DYNAMIC
> PATTERNS
Surely this is only true from the point of view of DQ. From the static viewpoint an
increase in stablity is more moral.
>
> IMMORALITYIS MOVEMENT AWAY FROM COMPLEX, DYNAMIC PATTERNS
As above. I know there is the idea that DQ is the most moral "force" (or however
you want to describe it) but from the point of view of the static levels dynamic
quality can cause extreme damage or instabilty in the static patterns which is
immoral.
> SAME LEVEL PATTERNS CAN BE IMMORAL ( mutual particle annihilation, Mutual
> Assured Destruction), RELATIVELY MORAL (lion eats gazelle, rapist violates co-
> ed), OR MORAL (marriage, gravity forming the universe).
> ¨ Note that purely moral acts aren’t about dominance though, they are more
> about synergy.
By this do you mean that morality is served better by co-operation, interaction etc. in
order that a greater good results that outweighs the good of the parts? From
some of your previous posts it would seem that you have a similar view of
complexity to myself. Have you scanned any of the Santa Fe Institue for Complex
Studies data and info?
> HIGHER LEVELS EMERGE FROM LOWER LEVEL INTERACTIONS. THEY REQUIRE CONTINUED
> DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS BELOW TO SUSTAIN THEMSELVES
Don't they also require that stabilty is achieved and maintained (not stagnation) in
order that they have a stable basis from which to operate and interact themselves.
> ¨ If you freeze all quantum value interactions, matter can’t exist. If you
> freeze molecules and matter, life can’t exist. If you freeze life, society
> and intellectual patterns can’t exist. (Remember where we started – value
> interactions create reality.)
The above sounds like stagnation of the static level. Again where does stability of
the levels enter the equation.
> Does it stray from MOQ?
Not too much as far as I can see - at least not according to my interpretation. If
you've read my recent post you will probably see that in many places we are in
agreement - feel free to criticize my own ramblings - pretty please.
> Is it useful?
Very. There seems to have been little attempt - in the main - this month to keep
to anything like the program. A few posts here and there: which seems incredible
seeing as the MoQ is supposed to be all about Morality. I dunno, maybe I
missed something somewhere along the line
> How can it be improved?
Continued discussion if anyone can be bothered. I'd be more than happy to
continue this discussion with you - for as long as you like. Come back to me
about some of my comments above or criticize my views in my own post. Have
you got any views about how your ideas relate to rights? I'd like to hear if you
have.
> Are we getting closer to taking on the morality riddles and relative morality
> problems posed at the beginning of the month?
Could be. We really need to see if a set of general principles can be extracted
which are applicable to given problems as Platt intimated.
Note to Diana:
Considering your recent comments, how about coming up with some input. You
seem to go to the core of things very quickly and provide useful insight. In other
words, now that there is some basis for comment why not do so?
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 - 16:02:40 BST