From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 20:56:29 GMT
Hi Kevin:
> Platt said:
> First, DQ always moves towards "Good" defined as greater levels of
> freedom and versatility. This doesn't mean that new developments or
> more complexity are always better.
>
> Kevin:
> I like this statement. I think you've tapped into something important. It
> allows for degeneracy within the system without negating the overiding
> drive of DQ towards something with more "freedom and versatility". Of
> course, I guess the next question is freedom and versatility to do what?
> Freedom and versatility for whom? For the pattern evolving? Or for DQ
> itself?
I'd say for both.
> Another thought along this line. Perhaps the force of DQ isn't towards
> "freedom and versatility". Perhaps that is the reaction of the pattern
> being acted upon by DQ. In other words, the evolutionary force of the
> universe doesn't dictate the direction of change, it just gives the push.
> The pattern/organism/idea chooses the direction of "freedom and
> versatility" because of it's own need to propogate itself. It's own
> survival in the face of Dynanic force and flux. Perhaps countless patterns
> do NOT choose the direction of "freedom and versatility" after DQ nudges
> them into flux and they do not survive. They dissappear. That would explain
> why we seem to see the patterns that move towards "freedom and versatility"
> and not the failed patterns. Any thoughts?
A brilliant analysis. Right on.
> Platt also said:
> Secondly, the MoQ presents a rational frame of reference or POV for
> determining betterness, goodness, right and wrong. You can adopt or
> reject it as you wish since every metaphysics, like every thought, is
> POV-centric. (I presume POV means Point of View, not Pattern of Value.)
>
> To believe that betterness or goodness is "just subjective" reflects the
>
> prevailing POV of moral relativity which Pirsig blames for "social
> catastrophe" whereby the biological forces of sex, drugs, crime and
> tyranny gain the upper hand. With no way to say why these forces are
> wrong (since it all depends on personal, subjective POVs), society
> becomes paralyzed, unable to act in its own defense, like a "spider
> waiting while the wasp gets ready to attack it."
>
> Kevin:
> Well, I'm not sure I'd call moral relativity the "prevailing POV". At
> least not in North America. Moral absolutists seem to be firmly in
> control around here. Fear not, Platt:-)
Yes, there a lots of absolutists who are certain that morality is
relative. :-)
> Also, I'm surprised that you put sex and drugs in the same box as crime and
> tyranny. I certainly wouldn't equate them and I'm hesistant to think that
> Pirsig would.
Sex and drugs are biological "goods." Pirsig also assigns crime (might
makes right) to the biological level. (24) Tyranny is simply crime on a
national scale.
> More importantly, I'm starting to realize that you seem unflappable
> about using relative terms like "better" in prescribing moral absolutes. I
> find that a bit strange. It seems to me that the whole language of MOQ is
> based on relatives (some things are simply better than others). It doesn't
> bless certain things as Pure Good For All Time And Eternity.
Well, the MoQ does say that it's pure good for a doctor to kill germs who
threaten human life. But the "moral relativity" of which I speak is not about
what is better or worse within a moral system, but the "tolerant" attitude
that all moral systems are equal.
> As you've very clearly illustrated, it provides a useful framework for
> making difficult decisions with moral authority based on ratios of goodness
> (small g) which we consider to be "better". It should also be noted that
> the "better" is fairly relative to the person making the decision. Let's
> face it, the MOQ provides a framework for me to make "better" moral choices
> that are "better" for me.
I should hope so. Enlightened self-interest.
> Platt again:
> My POV-centric view is that Pirsig offers a better solution to the
> problems that confront humanity than the "anything goes" POV-centric
> view of moral relativists.
>
> But, I could be wrong. (-:
>
> Kevin:
> Again I'm struck by your use of relative language here. I think it's
> meaningful even if you didn't intend it to be.
>
> I happen to agree with you that the MOQ provides a "better solution to the
> problems that confront humanity" than many other ideologies. I certainly
> wouldn't recommend "anything goes".
>
> Your polite disclaimer about wrongness is also telling. It
> deomonstrates, IMO, a healthy perspective about all decisions. We choose
> what is "better" for ourselves (and the MOQ makes that considerably easier
> in many cases) but we recognize that our choices are simply relative
> evaluations of goodness rather than Universal Absolutes. Otherwise, the MOQ
> would simply come up with it's own set of Commandments and there would be
> no need for choosing at all.
Full credit for the "I could be wrong" admission goes to Roger, a long
time contributor to this site, and to Pirsig himself who said the same in
an interview many years ago. But, let's also be humble enough to
recognize that to assert "There are no universal absolutes" is a itself an
absolute and thus refutes itself. Further, I think there are certain moral
absolutes such as don't drink arsenic or jump off the Golden Gate
bridge if you want to live. The new (some say crazy) idea that Pirsig
tries to get across is that ALL choices are moral choices. He has freed
morality from its confinement to human social behavior. It's a moral
world everywhere you look, from pond scum to penguins to people to
paradigms. I admit it takes some getting used to look at skittering
cockroach and think, "There goes a little bundle of moral values." But
no one ever said that a breakthrough idea would be easy to accept. :-)
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 11 2002 - 20:57:22 GMT