ROGER RESPONDS TO KEITH AND HORSE’S RECENT POSTS ON MORALITY
Keith and Horse,
I enjoyed both of your posts and learned from them as well. Please allow me
to ask questions and add comments. If you could review my recent post on
"Morality Breakthrough" I would be grateful for any suggestions too.
Starting with Keith, let me state that I think this evolutionary approach has
value, especially if we can work in some of Walter’s ideas about multiple
dimensions. Some other thoughts:
Keith:<<<<<<
-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.>>>>>>>>
Why? I believe it is because the emerging level is:
1) Composed of lots of lower level patterns
2) More complex and dynamic
3) Involved in synergistically reducing the negative effects of relative
morality in the level below
Feedback?
KEITH:<<<<<<< Certainly different points could've been chosen. In that sense,
they are perhaps arbitrary. However, these points are very *useful* because
at these points we find significant emergent dimensions appearing. New
phenomena appear at these points that do not follow the same rules as the
phenomena that preceded them. In that sense, the levels are disjunct and non-
arbitrary>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree that the "rules" or Glove’s "forces of Value" are what define the
level.
KEITH on where one level ends and another starts:
<<<There is, in principle, a single point in time and a single location in
space when and where the emergent behavior that characterizes each level first
appears. We may not know when that first moment is, but we can come close. The
closer we get to that moment, the more defined the boundaries of the levels
become and the clearer the definition of each appears >>>>>>>>>>
We need to be careful here. If the goal is a more accurate moral compass,
then we need to ensure that we haven’t shifted our fuzzyness or arbitrariness
from the moral dimension to the evolutionary or temporal dimension. Not meant
as a criticism, just a proactive warning.
At first we can explain emergent patterns through complex interactions at the
underlying level. For example, we could probably explain insects’ or even
wolves’ social patterns on a biological level. Eventually, the patterns and
interactions get too numerous and complex though, and our mental models only
work by collapsing the chaos by identifying meta patterns that are emergent
from the interactions . These are commonly known as ATTRACTORS. Further
understanding of Complexity theory and theories of dynamic systems could help
us clarify. I am no expert, though I just picked up several books on the
subject. Don’t know when I will have time to read them.
A must-read recommendation that I have read though, is " The Collapse Of
Chaos", by Cohen and Stewart. This adds incredible insights into your post
IMHO.
As for the points you make on the line between social and intellectual
levels, I agree that this needs more clarity. In fact I agree with Donny and
everyone else’s posts that this whole top level is confusing and inconsistent
.
****************************************
NOW TO HORSE’S:
HORSE WRITES: <<<<<<<<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 separate
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.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Exactly! And it will take a lot of focus to accomplish this feat. Some
members seem to have given one or two posts on the subject and concluded that
it is too confusing and we should go to next month's topic. Let us move
forward on this one and when Walter returns we can also go back and finish the
discussion on DQ.
HORSE: <<<<<<<<<<<<Each level resists change (dynamic quality) and those
actions which bring about change are considered immoral from within that
particular level.>>>>>>>>
I kinda disagree. I think patterns resist destruction and deterioration, but
not necessarily all change. I could be wrong though. Perhaps I or we need to
clarify between morality at a level vs morality of a pattern within a level.
I think that change as in getting a good meal tonight is moral to a lion. And
I think that change like annihilating Troy is moral to Greeks. What do you
mean?
HORSE<<<<<<<<
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.
>>>>>>>>>
Yes, and I would add that a more complex and dynamic pattern is more moral.
For example, a solar system is a more moral pattern than a speck of
interstellar stardust.
HORSE<<<<
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.>>>>>>>>
The key , defining values seem to be survival and replication. Pleasure seems
to me to be one of many emergent patterns to accomplish both.
HORSE: <<<<<<<
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. >>>>>>>>
Accurate , truthful , dynamic models of reality
HORSE: <<<<
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 separate
factions due to Dynamic Quality. This will result in the following
Inorganic Compounds
Biological Individuals
Social Groups
Intellectual Theories>>>>>>>>>>
Isn’t increased order a change? This gets back to my point that not all
change is immoral or resisted within a level. I think we just need to clarify
terms though. By the way, very insightful paragraph IMHO.
HORSE: <<<<<<<<<<<
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.>>>>>>>>>>
Do levels have a point of view? Please clarify. Other than that I agree 100%
HORSE:<<<<<<<<<
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.>>>>>>>>>
Again, I don’t see the levels being about protecting themselves. It is the
emergent patterns within the levels which are affected by morality . Biology
doesn’t care about society or intellect. People do. And the reason they
embrace these levels – which start as tools – is that they find that, similar
to eating and having sex, that teamwork is a successful biological strategy.
Ape’s don’t resist society – they embrace it – they are very social animals.
Later the society emerges with patterns of its own that may go counter to a
given ape’s interests. Like Alpha male getting all the sex.
HORSE:<<<<<<<<. 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.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agree with the whole paragraph, and would add that without the underlying
level there is no emerging level. This again explains partially why higher
levels can be more moral. Not only do they work to reduce relative morality
between factions below, they also last and evolve dynamically by protecting
the factions which they are comprised of. If you want to spot low morality
look for a pattern that exists by consuming or destroying its own self –
meaning the underlying patterns making it up. Leper. Cancer. Pol Pot.
HORSE:<<<<<<<
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.>>>>>>>>>>
Yes! Moral domination isn’t about destruction or needless lower level denial.
It is about protecting composite lower level patterns, adjudicating lower
level relative morality, and only sacrificing individual lower level patterns
as an absolute necessity to protect the greater level good. A moral
biological organism only discards those cells that no longer serve it. A
society that is moral allows its citizens to flourish as long as it isn’t at
the cost of other citizens or society (all citizens) expense.
Horse, my critiques are minor and intended constructively on this insightful
post. Hope they help.
Roger
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