From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 13:13:49 GMT
Hi Kevin:
Good questions. I'm happy to give you my answers and hope others will
chime in with theirs:
> 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?
I agreed because I took your analysis to mean that static patterns resist
change and often sabotage the "push" of DQ towards greater freedom
and versatility. For example, today we see the social level sacrificing
freedom for the sake of security, and the intellectual level, dominated by
science, reluctant to entertain any thought of a morally created and
structured universe because it suggests intelligent design. As for the
idea that what's good survives, I agree. But the way you put it, that good
is "just a prize for survival," suggests your not happy with that idea.
> 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?
Competing interests are resolved within a society by the rule of law, and
within a free society by a free market. In a free society, the interests of
all individuals are supreme because each gets what he wants through
trade. Criminals satisfy their interests by taking what they want by
stealth or force.
> 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.
Tyranny requires the use of physical force, an unenlightend way to
achieve self-interest because those forced will find it in their self-interest
to retaliate with equal if not greater force. Like you, I am fearful of
tyranny in all its forms.
> 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?
The choices for a cockroach were fixed eons ago. He operates out of
instinct which, in the MoQ, is a very static value pattern. At one time,
the elements that make up a cockroach were able to respond to
influence of DQ, but no more. He's set in his choices, as are all
inorganic and biological value patterns. But he still knows what's good
for him and what isn't.
> Does survival == morally superior?
Again, yes, within the context of the appropriate level. I don't think, for
example, that cockroaches are morally superior to humans just
because the bugs have survived for a longer time. But survival of the
U.S. vs Communist Russia indicates moral superiority of the former. Of
course, the question will always be, "How much time must pass before
something can be judged morally superior?" The Dark Ages weren't
morally superior at the social level to the period that preceded it, yet
they survived a long time. Judging moral superiority at the social and
intellectual levels based on survival alone must be provisional at best
because of our limited time frame. Perhaps this is what concerns you?
Platt
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 : Thu Dec 12 2002 - 13:16:48 GMT