Hi Ken, Walter and Squad
On 22 Dec 99, at 5:02, pclark wrote:
> Clark writes:
> Given a clear understanding of the circumstances under which we are
> operating at any given time it is certainly possible to behave morally.
> However, in view of the fact that we cannot know all of the details of the
> operation of the universe and the biosphere we do not have enough
> information from which to always make the most moral choice. Our judgement
> is limited by ignorance. It is not possible to behave morally under all
> circumstances.
What I'm trying to do at the moment is separate MoQ Morality and Good. Not, I hasten to
add, to distance the two as they are tighly related but I think I have good reason to do this
so I'll try to get to the above later. Bear with me.
>
> Clark writes:
> The universe is deterministic.The molecule that Platt mentions does
> contain enough possibilities to build the city of New York.
> Yes, we have free will because the complexity generated by the
> organization of the universe becomes so great that by the time the
> development of the universe reaches humanity we have been effectively
> disconnected from the deterministic origins of the universe. For all
> practical purposes we have free will.
This seems to be the same approach that Dawkins uses and derives from materialism. I'm
not at all happy with a Materialist interpretation of reality as it produces more problems than
it solves. Even allowing for Complexity and/or Chaos(?) if we start off with a purely
deterministic, materialist base then Quality suffers.
> Horse writes:
> Can we deduce the correct action (what we SHOULD do) from the facts that
> confront us.
>
> Clark writes:
> We cannot, in all cases, deduce the correct (most moral) action from the
> facts that confront us because we do not have a complete understanding of
> the operation of the universe and the biosphere. Our ignorance limits our
> ability to make moral decisions. We have the potential capability, not the
> understanding.
But from the MoQ we can see that all actions or events are moral because reality = morality,
so we don't need to deduce moral action (strictly speaking, Moral Events) from facts as they
are the same thing. This is why I want to separate Moral and Good, as an event may be
Moral but it is not necessarily Good. Or to be more accurate any event is Moral but the
degree of Goodness, perceived or experienced, varies with the participator and the context.
On 22 Dec 99, at 11:16, pclark wrote:
> Horse writes:
> Under MoQ there seems to be no difference between facts and values. In a value centred
> system (MoQ) which defines reality as inherently moral, any facts about the world are
> moral facts - "the physical order of the universe is also the moral order of the universe".
>
> What we need to do now is separate 'Good' from 'Moral'.
>
> Clark writes:
> Under the purview of universal morality the entire statement except for
> the last sentence is absolutely true. The universe is inherently moral and
> good because it was constructed under the guidance of Quality.
I agree that the Universe is inherently moral but I think Good is related to perception of Value
and possibly DQ.
> Where we come a cropper is when we inject human morality into the system.
> With the best will in the world humanity is incapable of separating the
> good from the moral in all cases because of our lack of a complete
> understanding of what is "good" and "moral". We do not have the capability
> of recognizing in all cases what "Goodness" and "Morality" is in a human
> centered universe and biosphere.
> The "Many Truths" idea was necessary to allow for human ignorance and to
> allow us a pathway with which to grow toward complete understanding.
And this is what I am trying to get at. Good and Moral are separate. This does not mean that
they are unrelated. We know an event is Moral because it can be no other way. But we're
not using the term Moral in the 'traditional' sense but in the MoQ sense. Not only do we
recognise Morality in a human-centred universe we have defined it and nailed it down.
REALITY = MORALITY. The degree of Goodness of an event is experience-centred and
contextual. Failure to recognise this results in conflict which can be seen in the recent (and
many not-so-recent) exchanges.
Let's try this on for size:
When we (as humans) try to impose a static value system of Good onto a Dynamic reality
we fail because, traditionally, Good is subservient to Truth and traditional moral systems
look for Moral Truth and not what is Good. Good cannot be tied down because it is not
static. Is it the case that what we are calling Good is strongly related to DQ although not DQ
itself. As DQ is indefineable any attempt to nail the Good will meet with failure.
On 23 Dec 99, at 0:46, Walter Balestra wrote:
> I'm with you until you write 'What we need to do now is separate 'Good' from 'Moral'.
> You bring up a distinction between Good and Moral which I understand as a
> distinction between 'Universal Morality' (the Good) and Human morality/ethics (the Moral).
> If I understand this correct, I would say: What we need to do now is to CONNECT 'Good'
> and 'Moral'.
I would see it as the other way around. 'Universal Morality' = Reality (the Moral). Human
morality/ethics = the Good. Good and Moral are co-dependent but not the same. I think that
Good is a term that directly relates to Dynamic Quality and our ability to differentiate
between what is Dynamic and what is Static and the degree of DQ perceived. But Good is
also a Intellectual pattern of value which we impose on the Moral order of the Universe.
> From the above 'definition' the Moral of already 'connected' to the Good. It is the
> static cultural consensus on what is Good. Often in history, this 'moral'
> has been of very low Quality.
> The problem however is that it is seen as 'the whole truth and nothing but the
> truth ...', whereas within the MoQ there's no such thing. Humans have a
> hard time shading decisions. Things are either black or white, right or wrong.
> Of course this is understandable because it's the way you live. You don't go
> around thinking 'that what I see coming at me looks like a car, but I can easily
> be mistaken). The problem with this Moral-truth is that people take it as the
> final goal and impose it top-down on how others should act.
I think this may be where traditional terminology and MoQ terminology conflict. Where the
MoQ defines Reality (the Universe) as inherently moral it does not follow that Reality is
inherently good IN HUMAN TERMS. Traditional morality based on Moral Truth applies the
principle of absoluteness - an unchanging and immutable Good. I do not believe this is so in
MoQ terms.
> I'm asking myself how this bottom-up Morality relates to the value of rules and
> laws in society, because it seems to contradict it. I want to argue that it doesn't,
> though it's not easy.
> Taking morality bottom-up it is tuned in to the Good. It's a proces that takes place
> in the individual, whereas laws and rules are social patterns. I'm willing to say that
> it's a pure dynamic-process, but doubt this because it's probably influenced or
> affected (at least partly) by the culture or mythos. I hope you can follow me so far.
> If you can, what do you think, can an individual really tune in to the Good, without
> being affected by the static (cultural bagage/mythos)?
If I interpret correctly what you are saying about a bottom-up Morality then this is a re-
statement of the natural order or progression of Reality/Universe and is Moral (perhaps I
should take a leaf from Bo's book and say Q-Moral). I don't think an individual (i.e. Human)
can tune into the Good without being affected by all static patterns of Value. We are after all,
in MoQ terms, created by and creating these patterns of value in a Dynamic/Static balance.
This is part of the contextual nature of perception of Good.
> Horse writes:
> > From an MoQ perspective reality is inherently moral so what we have to do now is
> > consider actions and behaviour as inherently moral. This now turns things around and
> > we have to look at what is GOOD. Rather than asking "is an action moral" we have to
> > ask "is an action good". This doesn't negate the free will question that I have asked but
> > puts it in a different light. Can we CHOOSE to do that which is good?
>
> Walter says:
> I'm confused reading this. To be absolutely sure we're in understanding, when you say
> "is an action moral" you mean when evaluated to static concepts
> of morality (laws, cultural understandings, etc.) and when you say
> "is an action good" you mean when evaluated to the overal (universal) Good.
When I ask if an action is Good I am not asking if it is Moral - that is a given. What I must
be asking is how does this action relates to Dynamic Quality. How do I perceive this action
in relation to other events that have occurred, that occur simultaneously and will occur as a
result of performing (or more likely have occurred as a consequence of the action I am
considering). In other words I must be trying to perceive how Dynamic an event is in relation
to other knowledge I have. At least this may be one possible interpretation of seeking what
is Good. Other interpretations may also exist, but if DQ is the highest possible Good then it
should follow that to seek the most dynamic outcome is to seek the highest Good. And to
ask if an action is good I must also ask if some other action that I could have taken would
have been better.
> If you mean it like this I would say: we can choose and whatever we choose is
> inherently Good. Killing your grandma with an ax is Good or has quality (though
> very little). I have more thoughts, but first want the confusion to be cleared up.
In the same way that saying that matter is an inorganic pattern of values sounds weird at
first, it also sounds weird (positively psychopathic) to say that killing Granny with an axe is
moral. But if I say "I just killed my Granny with an axe" this is a moral/factual statement.If I
say "killing my Granny with an axe was Good" then something is wrong. I have violated a
number of laws, removed a source of ideas etc. I have violated social and intellectual codes
(at least) and created a most low-value static situation with low-value consequences. Of
course there may have been a good reason to kill Granny with an axe - maybe she was
totally insane and was just about to kill my son. Different context, different assessment of
Good. Separating what is Moral from what is Good doesn't mean I'm treating one as
unrelated to the other.
I doubt if I've cleared up your confusion or fully answered yours and Ken's questions but
maybe we can get a better understanding of what we each mean by continuing. In the
meantime I'm going to have a go at answering Platts questions.
If I don't post again before Saturday (Christmas) then Happy Christmas everybody.
See Y'All
Horse
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 - 16:03:16 BST