Ken and MoQers,
Ken wrote:
> That is the source of my uneasiness with the
> MoQ as set forth by Pirsig. Under our current concept our understanding of
> our place in the universe is an amalgam of all of the sentient beings in
> the biosphere and I can see no possibility of reaching concensus on overall
> universal morality.
I think ultimately we're going in the same direction. At some point
humans must value the biosphere and do a much better job of managing our
interaction with it. There is no argument here.
If we do not, or if we make a mistake and blow our sentient asses out of
existence, then the other three levels will continue to operate -
everywhere in the universe where the other three levels exist. Or two or
one. The evolutionary experiment with sentience will be over in our
cosmic neck of the woods and DQ will start it up somewhere or somewhen
else if it hasn't already. In the cosmic scheme of things, we will be
somewhat less than a blip.
Level 4 means nothing to anything but us, and if we don't handle
ourselves correctly level 4 won't exist, unless there are other sentient
species. Pirsig makes it very clear that Level 4 cannot operate sans any
one of the other three levels.
The biosphere, hell, the universe does not need us, we need the
universe. If we don't get off our asses and get off this planet then
whether or not we save the biosphere means nothing in the long run. Some
cosmic event will get the earth, and every last one of us if we don't
get off of it.
Every quanta doesn't have to make the right choice for the material
universe to be as it is, just enough of them. There doesn't have to be
universal sentient consensus, just enough to affect the necessary
changes to ensure the next step for evolution, if indeed the next step
arises from us at all. We are merely the culmination of evolution at
this point, not the be all and end all of evolution. Now we have to take
over.
I wrote:
>> once sentience is attained, it has
>> the potential to substantially alter the course of evolution for itself
>> and the other levels.
We already manipulate the inorganic, and we're getting better at it. We
are learning to affect the biological level more and more via cloning,
genetic engineering, etc. Individuals muck around with the social level
all the time even if they don't know what they are doing. It's about
time we started figuring out what the hell we're doing and quit leaving
it to the damned amateurs or blind fate.
You wrote:
> Surely intellect should sometimes bow to
> the collective good, or to put it more accurately, should take all aspects
> of any decision on morality into consideration. Ken
Now we agree.
drose
Clark wrote:
>
> drose and MD,
>
> Clark writes:
> This results in the basis of morality being sentience which results
> > in a different MoQ for each sentient being. This is where he switches
> > to the idea that there is no single truth but a different
> > truth for each sentient individual.
> > This human focus on morality
> > leads into the heirarchy of the levels and dictates an
> > increasing level of morality for each of the four levels. At this point
> we
> > begin to judge morality from a strictly human standpoint. Morality is no
> > longer based on the physical universe, only on the concerns of humanity.
>
> drose writes:
> I see this as a shift to a discussion of the moral code I-PoV over
> S-PoV. Okay, here is where we can dovetail into the rest of the thread.
> If you accept the MoQ as Pirsig presents it, then the reason that
> sentience becomes the focus is that
>
> Clark writes:
>
> Drose-the thrust of your above paragraph is exactly the reason that I
> disagree with the idea that morality should be judged primarily on the
> intellectual level. The fact that sentience does cause us to base morality
> on the increasing levels of the MoQ is EXACTLY what fragments it and causes
> morality to be divorced from our total situation in the universe. It causes
> our concept of morality to be narrowly focused on the concerns of humanity.
> A very weak reed which depends on the collective wisdom of each and every
> individual in our biosphere.
> I would prefer to assign each of the four levels equal weight in
> evaluating morality. If we adopted that view then the fact that every
> individual in the biosphere wanted a wasteful, high powered car (an
> overstatement) would have to be balanced by consideration of the effect it
> would have in the biosphere. A situation that does not obtain under our
> current concept of the operation of the four levels. As of now the high
> powered cars would win every time. It seems a relatively small change in
> the operation of the MoQ but would make all the difference in our concept
> of morality and value. It would also simplify decisions on which actions
> were more moral or had more value.
> MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:05 BST