May I suggest we spend a short time period on this topic? "As a sub topic
for
a week after this one is over, for example. Let’s use the MOQ to analyze our
own processes. Let us add some flexible structure that allows freedom and DQ,
but that provides logical patterns and static latches. I have numerous ideas
if anyone is interested."
Now that's a great idea.
Rick
At 07:30 PM 11/22/98 EST, you wrote:
>ROGER PROVIDES FEEDBACK TO VARIOUS RECENT POSTS
>
>To Diana, Platt, Magnus, Alex, Donny, and Fintan’s critics:
>
>DIANA Writes:
> <<After going over and over it I still feel that using intellectual
>arguments you could make Pirsig's moral codes support anything you want,
so it
>can hardly be the basis for a new moral order.>>>>>
>
>Don’t give up so fast. We are just getting started. I don’t see that at
all.
>Now is the time to get serious, not to move on.
>
>DIANA Writes:
><<<<But, suppose a group of people managed to have a coherent, intelligent
>discussion on a mailing list. Suppose newcomers found it easy to join in.
>Suppose people asked themselves "what is the value of this post?" before
>hitting the send button. Suppose there was a group where people LISTENED to
>one another. Now that would be something special.>>>>>>>>
>
>May I suggest we spend a short time period on this topic? As a sub topic
for
>a week after this one is over, for example. Let’s use the MOQ to analyze our
>own processes. Let us add some flexible structure that allows freedom and
DQ,
>but that provides logical patterns and static latches. I have numerous
ideas
>if anyone is interested.
>****************************************
>
>Platt and Alex:
>
>Platt Writes:<<<<<
>Truth is a high quality set of intellectual patterns, a species of good whose
>tests are logical consistency, agreement with experience and economy of
>explanation. The MoQ does not insist on a single, exclusive truth. To quote
>one of my favorite passages from Lila: "One can then examine intellectual
>realities the same way he examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an
>effort to find out which one is the 'real' painting but simply to enjoy and
>keep those that are of value.">>>>>>>>>>
>
>I love your paragraph!
>
>PLATT Writes:<<<<<<<
>Since social quality is a higher level than biological quality, it is
immoral
>to steal the product of another's work (bread) to save your biological
>pattern. >>>>>>>>>
>
>Using my morality chart, I come to a different answer. Humans are
significant
>resources to Intellectual PoV’s. It is most moral to protect your own life
>and then accept the social consequences. The most moral course is to protect
>from total destruction , but to accept partial biological punishment – prison
>– etc.
>
>I am not condoning thievery, but the most moral course is that which
minimizes
>backward movement away from DQ while maximizing forward movement.
>
>From an intellectual level, the most moral course is to define social codes
>which discourage theft but to also provide safety nets for those that try to
>take care of themselves but fall upon disaster. Note that this doesn’t mean
>set up a system that allows people not to try. (remembering your concerns
with
>how welfare backfires)
>
>ALEX Writes :<<<<<
> (3) From what I've heard about Quantum Physics it sounds to me like a tier
>below chemical,(Quantum seems to be a completely different level obeying
>completely different laws) this has probably been answered long before now
but
>I haven't seen it yet. >>>>>
>
>
>Alex, don’t look at the patterns, look at the values that shape the patterns.
>The forces of physics shape or define the Inorganic patterns. Forces of
>survival and replication shape biological patterns , etc. A river isn’t
>defined by the individual water drops, it is defined by the path (values)
>shaping it. Seen this way the 4 levels make perfect sense.
>
>*********************
>
>Magnus Writes: <<<<<
>Large parts of the Squad still haven't learned that morality is not
>necessarily intellectual SPoVs. Of course, we have to intellectualize it
to be
>able to discuss it here, but we have to do it right.>>>>>>>>>
>
>I think I agree, but I would add that each level of course has it’s own
values
>and morality. The higher levels are capable of being more moral because they
>can sustain maximum morality and they can minimize the relative immorality in
>the levels below. Horse’s recent post expands more on similar concepts.
They
>can also be more immoral if not true to their own values.
>
>Walter (and I) wrote: <<<<<
>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 degree
>of morality of an event is the possibility that DQ, as a consequence of this
>event, is optimized over time.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>Magnus Responds: <<<<<<<<
>Optimized over time, a nice phrase but I'm afraid it's too intellectual for
>other patterns to act according to it. Do you think the first amino-acids
>consciously were trying to optimize their DQ over time?>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>No. Why would anyone think that? Please read my recent facetiously titled
>Morality Breakthrough post. Amino acids are pretty much non-conscious. The
>Inorganic value patterns ( and later the Biological values) are what shape
>them. But eventually the emergent patterns started consuming and destroying
>each other for relative advantage. The next level starts as a tool to
>maximize pattern complexity and DQ by solving some of the relative morality
>problems.
>
>Consciousness or Purpose are not necessary for pattern replication or
>emergence. Patterns that can replicate and last are the ones that do
>replicate and last. The values determine what patterns emerge out of the
>interaction. Consciousness now has emerged, and can now influence this and
>should influence it. This doesn’t mean telling amino acids what to do – they
>don’t need any help. It means controlling and working within the values below
>to maximize total DQ.
>
>************************
>Donny P writes:<<<<<<<<
>IntPoVs come out of a particular type of social dialogue known as
*proving* --
>As in: "Donny, stop bragging and prove it!" A truth that cannot circulate is
>like a money that can't circulate; it has NO VALUE. So we are not going 100%
>w/ LILA on this. (See, even the Guardian of the MoQ is open to change if it
>seems reasonable.)>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>I have seen a huge pattern of posts pointing to a better definition of the
>Intellectual level’s definition. I agree with the need to define it better.
>It seems to me that it is includes something along the lines of "patterns
>formed by the values of developing logically consistent models of
reality". I
>know this skates up close to SOM, but I think we can keep from going over the
>edge.
>
>I suggest this for next month , which is still a long way off , so let’s not
>bail yet!
>**************************************
>To Fintan’s critics:
>
>If you don’t like his posts or style why are you filling up this group with
>critiques and point by point rebuttals? Focus on what you think does have
>value. Keith, Horse and others have put out some well thought out posts.
>These seem pretty much neglected while everything Fintan writes -- and he
>writes a lot -- gets extensive coverage by the same folks that say they don't
>appreciate it . The best way to influence the discussion in the direction
>quality is to focus our writings on those with value.
>
>Personally I enjoy Fintan’s style and humor.
>
>Roger
>
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
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