Hi Roger and Squad
> 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.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
ROGER:
> 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.
>
Ethics is a tricky subject and often confusing and frustrating, especially as the
basis of any ethical system is Value. Add to that the SOM premiss that value,
being subjective, is no more than mere opinion and, basically, you're stuffed.
Once Quality/Value is seen as the source of 'reality' the landscape alters and
we're back in with a chance. Thank you RMP. I'm pretty sure that we'll come up
against the Consistency and Completenes problem so it's probably better to go
for Consistency from the outset. With that in mind, your own excellent post,
Keith's evolutionary post and Walters multiple dimensions approach we could
have a good chance of making some headway. My own bias is to approach this
from the direction of a rights-based system for the simple reason that a system of
rights can be written down. Additionally, a rights based system has the chance to
balance reason and compassion. That isn't to say it can be pinned down but
when an ethical system is to be constructed it's handy to provide a written
document stating what rights exist and how they relate to responsibilities.
Admittedly, it's a more static form, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does
provide for a means to modify mistakes which may are made. It's also more
tangible than a system which espouses 'Duty' or 'the greatest good for the
greatest number' or 'virtue' etc. which all become a lot more nebulous eventually.
> HORSE: <<<<<<<<<<<<Each level resists change (dynamic quality) and those
> actions which bring about change are considered immoral from within that
> particular level.>>>>>>>>
>
ROGER:
> 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?
A good point. I suppose that what we are talking about is the patterns within a
level rather than the level itself. The identification of the level is a means of
ordering the world. By identifying the different levels we can then examine the
relationships which exist within and between them in terms of the value the
relationships represent.
To take your distinction of 'morality at a level vs morality of a pattern within a
level', patterns within a level - Inorganic Compounds, Biological Individuals, Social
Groups, Intellectual Theories - require stability in order to provide maximum
longevity. The more stable a pattern/faction within a level is, the less likely it is to
degenerate to a less stable form. Greater stability of the pattern within the level
leads to greater longevity of that pattern. Unfortunately, from the point of view of
the pattern within the level it does not exist in isolation. Patterns within a level
exist in relation to other patterns within an overall environment and interaction
occurs. It is the interaction of the individual patterns within a level which gives rise
to change.
In order for the lion to maintain its stabilty it has to eat. In order for the lion's meal
to maintain its stability it has to run like hell! The interaction of lion and meal will
lead to change over a period by evolutionary means. The individual patterns within
the level resists destruction and deterioration but are FORCED to change due to
interaction. It is this imposition due to interaction (DQ) which could be seen as
immoral from the position of the patterns within the level.The static vs. dynamic
moral conflict. Seen from the viewpoint of an overall dynamic system - complexity
- it is immoral for the patterns within the level to resist change as, this would lead
to stagnation and eventually deterioration due to entropy. It is a balance between
the forces of morality - VALUE - within and between the levels which leads to the
greatest morality. Stability AND change are essential components.
> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>
>
ROGER:
> 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.
But taken to its 'logical' conclusion then, those patterns which are totally dynamic
are the most moral. But something which is totally dynamic is completely
unstable which leads to annihilation more quickly than a stable pattern. A
supernova then becomes more moral than a solar system. But if this is the case
then energy is used up at an enormously fast rate, entropy increases and we're
left, in a shorter time, with a static universe. Again, I think it is the 'right' balance
between static and dynamic values which leads to the greatest morality. This
leads us into fuzzy concepts which I think are essential to a well-formed,
consistent moral theory.
> 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.>>>>>>>>
>
ROGER:
> The key , defining values seem to be survival and replication. Pleasure seems
> to me to be one of many emergent patterns to accomplish both.
Or survival and growth. Most of the means to survival, growth and replication result
in or are the product of pleasure which is why it is the most useful (IMO) means
by which to judge moral action at the biological level, although, as above,
excessive pleasure is as damaging as too little.
> 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>>>>>>>>>>
>
ROGER:
> 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.
As patterns become more ordered (static) they also become more resistant to
change (dynamic). Increased order is a form of change but is a movement away
from dynamic rather than towards it - I've used the analogy of a dampened
oscillation in the past which still seems valid.
I suppose that the main idea that I am trying to express is that of balance. It is
the balance between resistance to change and insistence upon change that
appears to lead to the best outcome within and between levels. Too much
dynamic (positive feedback) and the system overloads and is destroyed, too
much static (negative feedback) and the system comes to a halt and dies. This
puts me in mind of Watt's Governor, which controls the pressure in a steam
engine. The Quality engine powers the train of existence - watch out for those
bends!
> 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.>>>>>>>>>>
>
ROGER:
> Do levels have a point of view? Please clarify. Other than that I agree 100%
Nah! Not really. They just do their thing. I'm just overlaying Intellectual patterns on
the other levels - which is probably immoral. For 'point of view' you could
substitute a number of terms. What I'm getting at in a rather clumsy way is that
there is right action for patterns within a level which leads to continued existence.
Then there is wrong action which curtails that existence. The gazelle at the
watering hole having a drink is performing a moral action - then the Lion leaps on
it and kills it. For the gazelle this is an immoral action, but for the Lion it is a
moral action.
> 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.>>>>>>>>>
>
ROGER:
> 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.
Well put. In constructing a moral system based on the MoQ principles we have to
try and get the right balance between moral actions within and between levels. A
system based purely on intellectual value would be an incomplete (and sterile)
moral system. But it is the utilization of the intellect that enables the balance of
right actions at different levels to achieve an overall balanced moral system. Too
much dynamic value at any level damages the overall system as does too much
static value.
> 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.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
ROGER:
> 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.
>
I have no argument whatsoever with the above.
> 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.>>>>>>>>>>
>
ROGER:
> 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.
>
And intellectual patterns provide a means by which social patterns may grow and
flourish (democracy, justice, Declaration of Rights, freedom of information etc.)
whilst maintaining intellectual independence which may not be subsumed by
social patterns.The intellectual patterns that needlessly damage the society from
which it evolved damages the means to sustain itself and acts immorally, whilst
the society which seeks to suppress or degrade intellectual patterns also acts
immorally.
The balance of rights and responsibilities within and between levels. I think we
may be getting somewhere now. We've still got a long way to go but I feel a lot
more hopeful that a workable moral system is achievable.
> Horse, my critiques are minor and intended constructively on this insightful
> post. Hope they help.
Roger, your critiques have helped me enormously and cleared up many of the
problems I was experiencing with my initial post. Many thanks. I suppose the
next step is to try and formulate some more specific moral principles which
enable a deductive approach to moral behaviour.
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