ROGER AGAIN TRIES TO PROVE THAT THE MOQ IS A BREAKTHROUGH IN PRECISE ANALYSIS
OF MORALITY.
Glove, Bo, Horse and others,
Based on your suggestions, I have completely revised my "proof" that shows how
to use the MOQ to analyze morality. It includes a complete rewrite of my
morality chart too. Be warned though, this is an interactive post which will
require action on your part to even understand it. It continues to be work-
in-progress. Tear it up!
Morality Axioms
1. Reality is Composed of Quality Events
2. Quality Events Involve Value Interactions
3. Quality Events Create the Subject and Object Patterns (SPOV's).
Question: Do you agree with this so far? This is pure MOQ in my opinion.
My next three are revised completely based upon your input.
4. Static Patterns of Value Require Continuous Interaction To Continue to
Exist
This arises from point #3. A thing which has no value does not exist.
Absence of
quality events is actually absence of existence. The point I want to
emphasize is
that patterns continuously experience QE's and "change" yet they maintain a
consistency to the pattern. These essential quality events actually occur in
two dimensions. To explain, let me use an example.Consider a laser light
show. Imagine a laser tracing the pattern of a man on a screen. The man
isn't moving, but the laser beam is. Freeze the beam, and the man's outline
collapses to a dot. The static pattern collapses without the underlying
changing QE's of the photons bouncing off the screen. On the other
dimension, the outline of the man can change too. The pattern can trace the
outline of the man running. In this case, the pattern CONTINUES but it
CHANGES. Replace photons with electrons and protons and you describe a
physical object (a man) who is further "created" by his value interaction.
5. Not All Dynamic Interactions Result in Pattern Emergence or Continuance
Interaction can and does often result in pattern deterioration, destruction
or chaos. Stopping the laser; crushing a rock; killing a man.
6. Successful Patterns Value Dynamic Continuance and Do Not Value Pattern
Discontinuance.
I completely disagree that patterns resist ALL change. They resist changes
that harm the pattern. Lions like change if it means eating a gazelle.
Religions like change in new members. Clearly, patterns do resist
fundamental pattern re-definition or destruction though. Also, since unknown
change is potentially catastrophic to a pattern, they tend to act
"conservatively".
Question: Do you agree with points 4-6? What am I missing?
7. Patterns Can Be Categorized into Four Distinct Levels
8. The Levels Are Defined by the Primary Forces of Value Shaping Patterns At
That Level
9. The Four Levels Are Defines as Patterns Created By:
The Values/Forces of Physics (Inorganic).
The Biological Values of Survival/Procreation (Inorganic Synergy).
The Values of Socialization (Inorganic/Biological Synergy).
The Values of Truth, Logic and Freedom (Holistic Synergy).
10. The Morality of a Quality Event is Measured By It's Impact on Pattern
Continuance and Advancement
11. The Immorality of a Quality Event is Measured by the Harm or Destruction
it Has on Patterns
The above two points are complicated by several issues. First, a pattern
doesn't always "know" in advance if a quality event or interaction will help
or hurt. Therefore, successful patterns have a characteristic of being
"conservative" or resistant to change, even change that may result in
improvement.
The second complication is that harm that doesn't destroy a pattern can
actually result in a strengthening or advancement of the pattern. The MOQ
does not eliminate uncertainty about the future.
12. There Are Two Distinct Perspectives to Evaluate Morality-
-Pattern Morality, and
-Holistic Morality
Pattern Morality is much easier to evaluate, though it is complicated by
the uncertainty-of-the-future issues mentioned above. In general, from the
point of view of the pattern, it is moral for a lion to eat a gazelle, or for
a society to assume control of another society, etc.
Holistic Morality is a new term which I am introducing for clarification,
but I believe it is implicit in how MOQ defines morality from the perspective
of the higher levels. For example, from the perspective of a society,
morality is comprised of the net holistic pattern continuance/advancement of
the underlying biological (its citizens and ecology), and inorganic (its
buildings and roads), and of the top level itself (its laws and religions).
Similarly, from the intellectual level, the morality of an event includes the
holistic morality of all four levels. Holistic morality as I use it is
therefore morality from the Univeral Intellectual Level. It is convenient,
because it reminds us that we need to consider the underlying levels, but
feel free to discard it if you choose.
Evaluating holistic (intellectual) morality is even tougher than evaluating
morality from the perspective of the pattern. Not only do we face the two
issues of future uncertainty, we also must evaluate all patterns at all
levels that are affected by a given Quality Event and evaluate the
complexity/DQ of each pattern and the relative degree of pattern
harm/benefit.
To add some structure to this extremely complex process, I have devised a
chart to evaluate the morality of any quality event/interaction. This is
completely revised from last week's chart. The old one simply couldn't
handle the most important dimensions. The prior chart's major shortcoming
was that it assumed that one pattern has to "dominate" in an interaction.
This is not true, so I have discarded it.
To understand this new chart, I need you to take two or three minutes to
build the chart. On a blank piece of paper, draw a chart comprised of four
columns and four rows. This creates 16 distinct boxes............. Come on,
do it................... The columns represent the impact to the first
pattern of interaction. Label the 1st column "Destruction". Second Column
"Harm". The Third "No Change", and the Fourth Column "Advancement". Above
the four columns write "Pattern A".
Next, label the rows. This time start with "Advancement", then "No Change",
then "Harm", and the fourth row is "Destruction". These four rows are titled
"Pattern B".
Have you done this? If so, you now have 16 boxes which allow you to
graphically
evaluate the outcome of a quality event. The top left box (A Destruction/B
Advancement) should be numbered box 1. Number sequentially across, then
start with box 5 on the second row left and continue until all boxes are
numbered. The numbers will make it easier to reference.
Now look at the patterns that converge. Boxes 9, 10, 13 and 14 are totally
immoral from the level of both patterns, and holistically. Boxes 5, 6, 11
and 15 are immoral holistically and of no advancement to either pattern. So,
half our possibilities are clearly immoral. Examples include mutual particle
destruction (13), or vandalizing a building (either 9 or 14, depending on
which pattern you label as the vandal).
Boxes 3, 4, 7 and 8 on the other hand, are moral from the perspectives of
both patterns and holistically (intellectually). When husband marries a
wife, it is an example of box 4. Reading a book could be represented by box
3 or 8.
Now for the tough boxes, numbers 1, 2, 12 and 16. Here we have relative
morality. One pattern benefits, at the expense of the other. This is where
holistic morality is difficult to assess. A lion eats a gazelle (box 1 or
16), US bombs Japan, Rapist does victim, woman aborts fetus. Here, holistic
morality needs to be weighed carefully by evaluating the level of the
pattern, the amount of harm vs advancement, etc.
Better yet though is that this chart clearly shows the path toward DQ. It
is synergy and cooperation. Rather than arguing whether Japan or the US is
more moral, the clear answer is that they should try to co-exist and trade
and exchange for mutual benefit. The most moral choice for abortion is
clearly to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
Pirsig states that the MOQ allows us "to analyze moral arguments with
greater precision than before". Clearly, this is correct. If MOQ becomes
the predominant metaphysical world view, I predict over time we will be able
to make huge advances
from our current level of understanding. Clearly, it is a momentous advance
over relative cultural morals and "gut feeling".
Please be critical and let me know where you agree and disagree.
Roger Parker
PS If you did the chart, it should look similar to below.
PATTERN A
PATTERN B Dest Harm N/C Adv
Adv 1 2 3 4
N/C 5 6 7 8
Harm 9 10 11 12
Dest 13 14 15 16
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