Walter and squad,
First let me say that I agree with you that looked at in your way (just
as correct) the universe is still a moral universe by virtue of Quality. If
we are not going to view humanity as something we would like to save then
everything you say is true and the morality of the universe has not been
affected.
According to my view the universe has been presented with sentience and I
believe that this imposes a responsibility on humanity that, say the
cuttlefish, doesn't have. I think it would be pretty safe to say that
sentience is here to stay even if humanity isn't. Under these conditions we
would normally expect one of two things to happen.
Either evolution would proceed normally, possibly wipe out humanity, and
produce another group having a more advanced sentient level. Without
interference this process would repeat itself until Quality produced a
level of sentience that could cope with the problem, or this process would
continue until conditions changed in the universe so that no question
remained.
The other path open would be if humanity became aware of the problem and
devoted our smidgen of sentience toward making us compatible with the
operation of the universe and the biosphere. We can expect no favors from
Quality. We will have to use our own sentience to alter the onrush of
Quality generated evolution. The problem is not one for Quality, it is our
problem. Makes no difference to Quality.
Walter says:
Though I always symphatized with your down-to-earth view of
the MoQ, emphasizing the evolutionary way of Quality, I very
much disagree with you on that sentience stopped the universe
of being a moral universe.
Clark says:
We have agreed that your way of looking at Evolutionary Quality is as
correct as any other and, according to your viewpoint, the universe is
still a moral universe. It seems to me that this view absolves humanity
from taking any thought or responsibility for sentience. We can go on just
as the squirrels do, take anything we need from the biosphere without
regard for sustainability, and let Quality take it's course.
My view is that Quality, operating just as it should, has caused us to be
the first evolutionary product to be sentient. This sentience of ours has
opened the possibility for actions which may be detrimental to the
biosphere to occur.
Quality doesn't care. It is us, operating in our own self enterest, that
should make ourselves as aware as possible of the workings of the biosphere
and take those courses of action which will make us as compatible as
possible with the universe and biosphere.
I do not look upon this as a narrow, anthropocentric, view. Rather it
broadens our area of interest greatly. It wouldn't be fair to say that I am
disappointed with the current application of sentience. I rather think that
we are just now becoming aware enough to begin to put sentience in the
simultaneous service of humanity, the biosphere, and the universe. It would
be fair to say that I am disappointed in the thrust of the search for
ethics going on in the squad now. That is why I keep posting when I say
that I will stop. In my opinion it is the squad that has the narrow
anthropocentric view. I am just trying to bring in an overall view of the
universe, the biosphere, as well as the legitimate concerns of humanity so
that the overall picture can be considered in context. Until we do that our
sentience is not helping much.
Walter says:
Sentience is the product of the Good (=Quality) and so are the 'products'
of sentience. You can't turn that around and break the continuum of the
evolution of Good in the universe, because it has harmfull consequences
for mankind
Clark says:
Can't argue with this except to say that I believe that we should
consider sentience to be a human opportunity rather than a human detriment.
I don't see where you can say that the products of sentience are good
because sentience is the product of good. The continuum of good has not
been broken. Value and good are still performing the same functions they
now just have another possibility (ethics) to contend with.
David B. says:
Ken, thanks for your response to that PURE PIRSIG POST. I was thinking
of getting more explicit about you notion that sentience allows evil in
a "big bang" universe. It seems clear to me that Pirsig means what he
says about the static patterns, that they are "moral" and have some kind
of awareness, even at the inorganic level. On the last page of chapter
12 he says...
"So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, is
an ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of
reality create life the MOQ postulates that they've done so because its
"better" and that this definition of "betterness" is an elementary unit
of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based."
Clark says:
I am sure that Pirsig makes no statement that presentient Quality is
moral and that postsentient Quality admits of immorality. I base my opinion
simply on the reading of Lila. However as I read the quotes in your reply
to Bodvar this seems to be an inescapable conclusion.
David B. letter to Bodvar:> Now this vagueness is removed BY SORTING OUT
VALUES ACCORDING TO
> LEVELS
> OF EVOLUTION. (The water is inorganic and the nation is social.) They
> are completely different from each other because they are at different
> evolutionary levels. The patterns have nothing in common except the
> evolutionary process that created all of them. But that process is a
> process of value evolution. Therefore the name "static patterns of
> values" applies to all.
Clark says:
Note that he says that the inorganic(presentient) and the social
(postsentient) levels are completely different from each other. Also note
that he does not speak of ethics but of value. In the presentient levels
ethics does not exist, there is no need for it. The need for ethics only
comes in in the postsentient levels.
[David Buchanan] The previous quote seems relevant to your
SOLAQI idea. I think it shows that, in Pirsig's view, the MOQ is an
alternative intellectual framework. One that dissovles the "torment" of
a flawed framework. It clearly implies that there are and can be options
within the intellectual level. So this means that SOM is not equal to
the intellectual level itself, just one possible system within that
level. It seems to me that if SOM is equal to the intellect, then the
MOQ would be impossible to conceive or imagine.
Clark says:
My view of the MoQ is that it is not an intellectual framework. The MoQ
was in existence most of the time before the intellect came into being.
I agree when you say that there are, and can be, options within the
intellectual level. Keeping in mind, of course, that the only options that
were available during the pre-sentient phase were those possibilities that
were made available because of ongoing evolution. Therefore, no ethical
options were available pre-sentient. Post-sentient ethical options are
available to humanity and can run contrary to the urgings of Quality.
My concern with these ethical options is that they should be based on an
adequate understanding of the interaction of the universe, the biosphere,
and humanity. Without such an understanding we will have no way of judging
the ethical impact of our decisions.
David says:
The MOQ has much more to say about ethics...
>
> It says that even at the most fundamental level of the universe, staic
> patterns of value and moral judgements are the identical. The "Laws of
> Nature" are moral laws. When inorganic patterns of reality create life
> the MOQ postulates that they've done so because it's "better" and that
> this definition of "betterness" -this beginning response to DQ- is an
> elementary unit of ethis upon which all right and wrong can be based.
>
Clark says:
This says that all post-sentient ethical decisions should take as their
starting point the pre-sentient morality of the universe. This is true.
David B. says:
[David Buchanan] In MOQ terms it seems that the "nature" part
of our nature is really just the more static and older aspects of our
being, the first two levels of static patterns. The biological patterns
are very stable and the inorganic level seems as solid as a rock,
totally static. And when SOM talks about "nurture" they're really
talking about the more dynamic levels within us. Socialization and
education are classic examples of nurturing functions, eh?
Clark says:
David, it seems to me that you have made my argument for me. Ken
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 - 16:03:14 BST