Hi Daddy, Platt, Drose and MD,
I hesitated, then decided what the heck. I'll take a turn at this... Who
knows, I might even say something useful ;)
----- Original Message -----
From: Clark <clark@netsites.net> Sent: Saturday, June 12, 1999 9:11 PM
> Platt and the group,
> I consider Quality to be the driving force for good in
> the universe. Not the same as value, good, dynamic quality, etc. According
> to me Quality came into existence at the beginning of the universe along
> with the physical parameters that also came into existence. Dont ask me
> where any of it came from. I haven't got a clue. We just know the universe
> is there and we would like to think that it had a beginning. Maybe it
> didn't. If that is so that wouldn't make the questions any easier.
> In my view the universe was deterministic from the start and is still
> deterministic. The path that produced us is good because there was no
> reference point for bad in the universe until humanity (sentience)came
> along. Since we evolved from this "good" universe then, as Platt says, we
> are embedded in and surrounded by "good".
Mary - In my view, the Universe is deterministic only in the sense that all
that has Statically Latched before determines the (broad) range of
possibilities available for future latches. The reference point for what is
good in the Universe is the Static Latch. If it's latched, it's good - at
least for the moment until something better comes along.
> One of the problems I have with the MoQ is that it seems to me to be
> entirely too humancentric. We talk about the levels evolving to a higher
> plane as life, sentience, etc, evolved. I think that this is not a
correct
> way of looking at the human situation. I think that the inorganic level
and
> the biological level can at times be on a higher value plane than the
> social or intellectual levels. I regard the levels not as a gradation of
> value but as an intermix of value conflicts which can go either way. In
> many cases the social and intellectual levels can operate at a lower value
> level than the inorganic and biological levels. Surely some of the needs
of
> the biosphere should override the desires of humanity.
> Mark mentioned the other day about the world population arriving at
seven
> billion or so this year. Surely there must come a time when we must curb
> our own desires and concerns in favor of the health of the inorganic and
> biological levels. We are also being told that the mean temperature of the
> Earth is rising. Some of this is attributed to a hotter sun but some of it
> is attributed to our disturbance of the gaseous envelope of the Earth. It
> seems to me that we are approaching a time when the i and b levels will
> demand precedence over the s and i levels. I can envision a time when we
> will have to rethink our application of the MoQ.
> It does not seem reasonable to me that our actions on Earth can have any
> effect on the Universe at large but It seems obvious that they can, and
> are, affecting the biosphere.
Mary -
Pirsig does not address first causes. Like you, he assiduously avoids
mentioning anything about where DQ came from or how the Universe started.
In another post today I mentioned the idea that a First Cause is ultimately
unknowable because it was never statically latched. If it had been, it
would be possible to restart the Universe at any time the inorganic level
felt a preference for it. First Cause would be in the inorganic toolkit,
and that would be bad for every level. What fascinates me about this is the
human desire to assign a First Cause. Why would we come equipped with this
need? It's so strong that we even hampered our own ability to understand
those things we can answer for several centuries at a stretch. But that's
for another day.
Your definition of Quality as the driving force for Good in the Universe
sounds somewhat like Socrates' (?)Ultimate Good. An objective Good which
stands outside the Universe as an absolute. Pirsig disagrees with this as
we know. He absolutely objects to absolutes. In the MOQ there are none,
there is only DQ, SQ, and the Moral Codes interacting between the SQ levels.
Why is this a problem? Why does the Universe require The Good? Isn't it
good enough knowing, as Pirsig tells us, that Value is the only thing that
exists?
My understanding of the MOQ, for all us SOM thinkers, is that DQ represents
the complete range of all possibilities available in the Universe. SQ
consists of all those possibilities that some static pattern already in
existence prefers and which is found to be repeatable. A latched
possibility becomes a pattern in support of a Static Level. The existence
of a new level occurs when a static level latches something in support of
itself that can become an end in itself. Sort of an uh-oh situation for the
existing Static Level.
The problem you see with Morals is a result of the confusion that arises
between human Social Level Morality and MOQ Morality. Personally, I think
Pirsig's choice of words was poor. True, it IS morality he's talking about,
but MOQ-Morality is a superset of human Social Level morality. MOQ Morality
concerns the interplay of Values between the levels, and the "latchability"
of any new Value inside a level. MOQ Morality has something to say at every
level - including those that existed long before humanity. We all know what
human Social morality is.
We seem to spend a lot of time here on the MD and LS discussing things which
are more properly in the domain of Social morality. The Intellectual level
is driven by it's own preferences to destroy Social level morality; but the
Intellectual level is not in the business of destroying MOQ Morality as it
exists between the levels. It couldn't if it tried. The Intellectual level
can't, so far, even gain control of the Social - much less influence MOQ
Morality. If it tried, it would be an MOQ-Immoral act.
I agree completely that the biosphere *as we know it* is in trouble. We are
changing it, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The biosphere has
survived massive changes in the past. The only thing about it is that it
came out the other end a different biosphere. It's been said that if
asteroids didn't strike the Earth about 65 million years ago, dinosaurs
would still be the most prominent species. From a human perspective, that
was good - haven't seen any dinosaurs lately to ask what they thought about
it, though.
It seems to me we are doing the same thing now. If we keep polluting and
reproducing at our present rate, we are handing the inorganic level the DQ
possibility to render the planet uninhabitable. That's a possibility we
don't want in the Inorganic basket of choices. Of course, it probably won't
be that bad. What we are really doing is opening up a Pandora's box of all
sorts of DQ possibilities that could range from the inconvenient to the
catastrophic - from a human point of view. From an MOQ POV, though, it only
means that we are probably making it more and more possible that humanity
will suffer to some degree, and perhaps even open the way for another
species to ascend the SQ heap.
No, I don't buy the idea that you can shuffle the order of the levels like a
shell game. I don't think it's necessary. As others have already pointed
out, the MOQ-Moral Codes between the levels are all that's needed to keep
humanity in line should we fail to heed the biological and inorganic
warnings. If our Social and Intellectual levels persist in violating the
MOQ-Moral Codes, we will pay. To me it's that simple, and doesn't require a
re-ordering of levels at all.
DQ is neither good nor bad. It's just the range of possibilities. DQ has
no opinion. If you are open to new ideas, new possibilities, you are open
to DQ. If, instead, you are rigidly bound to a set of beliefs (usually
established to support the Social level in the human case) you are immune to
DQ. There were times in human history when this was the case. The Dark
Ages or the Victorian era come to mind.
- Mary :)
PS: The MOQ is like the ACLU of philosophy. It's not whether something is
good or bad; it's whether the Universe has the right to try it or not.
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