From: Kevin (kevin@xap.com)
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 22:33:35 GMT
Platt quotes me and adds:
> 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.
Kevin:
I must confess I'm surprised at your reaction to this idea. It would
remove the "goodness" from DQ itself. It would make DQ morally neutral.
It would say that what we call "goodness" or "better" is just a prize
for survival.
It's not an idea I have much invested in, I must say. IN fact, it simply
occurred to me as I was writing the earlier post and I submitted it out
of curiousity.
Are you really in agreement?
Platt quotes me and adds:
> 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.
Kevin:
But what happens when self-interests conflict? How do we resolve
competing interests? What is "better" for me may be much much "worse"
for you and vice versa. Whose interests are supreme?
Isn't the relativism you fear actually the acceptance of the Enlightened
Self-Interest of everyone around you? Wouldn't promoting Enlightened
Self-Interest above Collective Interests just result in Tyranny?
I'm equally fearful of the Tyranny of the few over the many, as I am of
Tyranny of many over the few.
Platt goes on to say:
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. :-)
Kevin:
I think this illustrates the fuzzy part in founding *ALL* of evolution
on morality. Are the choices that enable the cockroach to exist moral
choices or survival choices? Is there a difference between survival
choices and moral choices?
Does survival == morally superior?
With much curiosity,
Kevin
P.S. Some may view my style of conversation to be somewhat like the
"Socratic question trap school" of rhetoric. It's not intended that way.
I pose questions out of genuine curiosity as they occur to me. I rarely
have an answer already in mind and I'm not trying to paint anyone into a
corner.
Platt seems always equally eager and confident to indulge my curiousity
and I appreciate it quite a bit.
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 - 22:34:07 GMT