Squad,
I forgot that I had imported a couple of pastes on the end of my post
with the intention of commenting on them. They follow below.
----------
From: pclark <pclark@ipa.net>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: MD Nothing but a moral compass.
Date: Friday, November 26, 1999 8:51 PM
>From Walter's post:
Walter says:
I think we are in understanding of
eachothers viewpoints, but we differ in what it means for human beings as
Moral-beings.
Ken writes:
> 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.
Walter says:
Precisely, now of course we can still disagree on IF humanity could be
saved
and if so HOW humanity can be saved.
Ken writes:
> 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.
Walter says:
Precisely my point.
Ken writes:
> 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.
[...]
> According to my view the universe has been presented with sentience and I
> believe that this imposes a responsibility on humanity [...]
Walter says:
I agree with this too as long as this responsability on humanity is for
humanity
itself and (therefore also for) it's environment or habitat. Not for
Quality.
In the next piece it gets interesting, because we begin to disagree on what
this
means for humanity.
Clark says:
I need to drop back a little and try to make myself clear. I disagree
with your
above statement regarding responsiblity being placed on humanity itself but
not Quality.
One of the worrisome things to me about Pirsig's ideas (the MoQ) is that
he begins talking about universal quality but then drops back and talks
about Dynamic Quality which is seemingly only applied to humanity. In my
mind this removes universal quality from human concerns and leaves the
whole question of morality and good and ethics solely dependent on the
level of understanding of individual humans. This is about the same
situation that we have now. True, it is possible to make moral judgements
with the aid of the static levels, and it is also possible to make moral
judgements based on universal Quality but if the current situation is any
guide only the more thoughtful people would do so. Most people would make
their moral and ethical judgements based what was immediately good for
themselves or their own interests.
I would like to make presentient Quality an inescapable part of each
persons mental
baggage as they establish their philosophical stance toward the universe,
the world, and society. In this way presentient morality and value and good
would be the same throughout the universe and would be a common starting
point for each human
In an attempt to do this I would separate Quality into Quality and
Dynamic Quality with Quality being universal Quality and Dynamic Quality
being human quality.
Having separated out universal Quality I would establish it as coming
into being at the birth of the universe and as being the driving force
behind the universe as it works its way toward whereever it is going.
Again, Quality would be responsible for all of the presentient morality and
value and good in the universe and this Quality given morality and value
and good would provide the same starting point for each human. Each of the
four levels would present us with the results of universal Quality up to
the present. The inorganic and biological levels would continue as before
sentience and the social and intellectual levels would present us with the
stream of good and value and truth resulting from the current operation of
universal Quality. Every sentient being would have available to it the
results of universal Quality and would have no option but to include UQ in
their individual views of the universe. I gather from remarks made in other
posts that some of you are of the opinion that universal Morality is a side
issue and not as important as human Dynamic Quality. I take the exact
opposite position, that our first concern should be to make our human
concerns compatible with the nudgings of universal Quality. Only in this
way will we have compatible non-sentient and sentient value and morality
and good and have the possibility of living in harmony with the universe.
I agree with you that even with the current system we still have a
mechanism for care and attention for the biosphere and the universe as a
whole. My concern is that in turning the whole question over to Dynamic
(human) Quality most people will not have a sufficient understanding or
interest with regard to the universe. As I think I said before, beginning
with Dynamic Quality and solely relying on individual levels of awareness
and understanding will give us a different level of morality and ethics for
each human with the "many truths" idea to slowly guide us toward a common
viewpoint. As I see it, this is not much of an advantage over the SOM
system.
I am sure that many, maybe all, of you will be shocked by this radical
restructuring of the way that Quality operates in the universe. Rather than
a dynamic Quality informing humanity and slowly (many truths) moving us
toward a common result (whatever that might be) we will now have an
overarching Quality that drives the universe toward randomness and in the
process creating and filling a myriad of possibilities as they arise. The
result of this Quality will be an ever increasing complexity with the
result that a deterministic universe will become effectively
non-deterministic due to complexity.
Remember that Pirsig said that he had only scratched the surface of the
Quality idea and invited further exploration.
Walter, I am not sure if this is on track with the previous discussion we
had going. I am going to drop this here and if it evokes any response I
will try to extend the ideas. Ken
Tor says:
So now I've got DQ rippling up and down the levels, but the
source-spark has to be at the inorganic level, I can't get by this
source spark bit without all layers becoming deterministic because
they are implemented by the layers below...
This may sound more harsh than I intend, it boils down to the fact
that you can't implement randomness in a deterministic system
Clark says:
Tor, keep in mind that this interacting DQ and SQ that is rippling up and
down the system is unimaginably complex because it has been doing this from
the beginning and thus is continually creating and filling possibilities.
My view of the matter is that the universe is a deterministic system but
because of the complexity that has been generated in bringing the universe
to its present condition there is no way that we can ever trace the
deterministic pathway. In my view we are now living in what is effectively
a non-deterministic universe because of this impenetrable complexity. Ken
Clark
David Buchanan says:
The whole POINT is simply that we can't let Pirsig's "many truths
provisionality" become an excuse for sloppy thinking. We can't let it
lead us into another moral vacuum. Everything matters.
Clark says:
David, this is exactly my reason for wanting to pin the "many truths"
function to a fixed level of morality as it would emanate from universal
Morality. Under the influence of universal Morality the inorganic and
biological levels would present a stable universal moral platform and the
social and intellectual levels would present the current ongoing interplay
between universal Morality and human Morality. In this way the totality of
our present universal morality situation in the universe would be presented
to each individual regardless of their individual levels of awareness, and
thus have some continuous, ongoing impact on their perception of "truths".
It should have a restraining influence on any unethical human behavior or
attitudes and bring the "many truths" position to a higher plane and thus
closer to a final common ground. 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
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