JOHN:
We have already found difficulty with the assumption that the different
kinds of values associated with each level are part of some "process of
value
evolution". However the question of the existence of the four systems or
levels remains an open one. The proposition is at least plausible, and it
seems to me that the test of experience does tend to confirm it. That is, I,
as an organism that functions within all four levels, frequently experience
conflicts which may be seen to arise from the mutual antagonisms of the
different systems, and these conflicts frequently appear intractable (there
appear to be no win/win solutions).
But even if this is so, it does not necessarily follow that the four systems
are rigidly hierarchic. Is it always the case that social values, for
example, over-ride biological values? Or is it rather that biological values
form part of the field in which social values arise, and the biological
values are encountered as constraints, limiting and shaping the options
available to the emerging social value system? In this more subtle
statement,
there may be direct conflict between biological and social values, but there
is likely to be quite a bit of mutual adjustment as well. Indeed, this seems
likely, given that the complete overturn of biological values by the social
is likely to result in the elimination of the organism. Jonestown is an
example of such a situation, where the society became self destructive, but
obviously such social systems destroy their own bases for survival. So
although there may be some basis for asserting that since systems arising in
the higher levels manage lower level systems, they therefore dominate the
lower level systems, such domination need not be totally oppositional. Nor
will every emerging social value be equally above the lower level biological
values. It is to be expected that the lower level values will form an
important part of the environment which will select which higher level
emergents will survive. It may well be that the lower level values will at
times appropriately overturn some higher level emergents.
Avid:
Again you touch IMO on the most important issues of SOM> MoQ shift, but I
think you are wrong with your conclusions.
The important question is how do these layers stand in relation toward each
other.
You are wrong that it is you who address all four of them.
You as an Organism have access to Biological laws of survival, if you are
sick, or on a walkabout in the jungle. You as a social agent will have
access to social activities as not letting your citizen/neighbors legislate
XYZ. You as cultural operator in the internet [making other cultural agent
like me angry] you do different actions according to different codes. You as
material can be more in a passive role [getting burned, blown up etc.].
The idea that we don't get confused from which level to operate [as what to
operate], gave rise to the idea of exit points.
My favorite example is that you never try to fire your mother. They belong
to different exit points:
* Mother son relationship = Social level SPQ.
* Managerial stuff = Cultural level SPQ [economy, Law etc.].
The idea that you don't get confused is a point for the idea of exit points
[that as you can feel replace the subject in a SPQ].
What gives place to dilemmas are questions of how well are the layers
imposed on each other:
"What is the use of good social longevity if we gas ourselves to death by
car pollution".
This I call "quality of imposition", but here I'm jumping the gun. All I
want to say that it can be worked out from within the system without great
difficulty.
The rigid hierarchy you sense is [like RMP suggests toward scientific
behavior] a matter of self confidence of the system, nothing that cannot be
removed from the system, once it gets in quality's way.
What makes us so blind to see how to solve these conflicts [or dilemmas], is
the Hegelian structure underlying Psychology and many other social sciences,
AS A NECESSARY COMPONENT.
Here too once quality is given preference, you can suggest rules of how to
impose one level on the other, making the conflict a mark of poor imposition
quality [Welcome to QuIT - Quality Improvement Theory - which I do as a
therapist for my living].
>From the Johnstown example we can suggest that in order to maintain good
social SPQ, dead agents are not such a good idea.
However my conclusions are opposite then yours.
A higher morality is possible only when the levels are in optimized quality
[each one of them], each level has more room to maneuver once it is
optimized imposed on the previous level. So in order to have more chances to
achieve Cultural quality, we better have a functional free society, this has
best chances to happen when there is best biological quality, longevity,
food for all, lots of good sex and many children.
This can be better achieved when on the material level most materials
surrounding us will be non poisonous non radioactive etc.
How do we know what SPQ is best for each level?
We don't, but we allow the imposed on level to have some freedom, that will
allow it to find out and refined the best quality possible in each level [I
call it maximal autonomy within the imposition].
ROGER:
I tend to agree with most of your points on the moral hierarchy. The
hierarchy is an Aristotelian ordering system of value, but harmful if taken
as literally as RMP suggests in places. I also strongly agree with your
stressing the harmony as well as the conflict between levels.
Avid:
What I suggest is the reversal of Aristo order [more in the fashion of
Socrates not knowing what's good].
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
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 - 16:03:11 BST