From: Kevin (kevin@xap.com)
Date: Fri Dec 13 2002 - 22:11:09 GMT
Platt:
Good questions. I'm happy to give you my answers and hope others will
chime in with theirs:
Kevin:
I'm glad you enjoy the questions. At least they're not boring:-)
Although the reluctance of others to offer an opinion makes me
wonder.....
Platt:
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.
Kevin:
To me, the most important question is whether "the push" that DQ gives
is directed or directionless. Is the push morally neutral?
To illustrate, static pattern B gets a great big dose of DQ. We observe
that static pattern B survives and adapts to it's new reality by
choosing a course that provides more freedom and versatility. Do we
assume that the push from DQ dictated the choice towards freedom and
versatility? Or do we assume that the push from DQ was neutral and
static pattern B merely chose well, i.e. static pattern B was equally
free to choose poorly (less freedom and versatility)?
If the "push" of DQ is neutral (static patterns may choose freedom and
versatility or something else entirely), then calling static pattern B
"Good" or "Better" or "morally superior" because it survived is rather
arbitrary. "Good", "Better" or "morally superior" simply become names we
apply to surviving patterns.
Or is the "push" of DQ actually, as you put it, "*TOWARDS* freedom and
versatility"? Directed. Vectored. Purposeful. If that is the case, I
would predict that static pattern B's choices are limited to "freedom
and versatility" or no change at all. What other force in the universe
could cause static pattern B to choose otherwise? Is there an equal and
opposite force to DQ that pushes static pattern B towards "tyranny and
obsoleteness" or any other choice? How can degeneracy exist if DQ only
works in one direction (towards good)?
Platt:
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?
Kevin:
No, what bothers me is the notion that survival == "morally"
superiority. It reeks of Manifest Destiny to me. In my mind, there are
many many variables controlling survival outcomes that have very little
to do with "moral" superiority.
Propagation. Sheer numbers. A virus' ability to propagate makes it one
of the most successful (if not THE most successful) organism on the
planet Earth. We both know what Pirsig has to say about viruses.
The same goes for ideologies. If we value an idea simply by it's ability
to propagate and then label it "morally superior", that troubles me
greatly. There are a great many ideas that have survived over the
centuries that I would think can be clearly labeled as "evil" despite
their formidable vitality.
You seem to be saying that time will tell. To me that sounds like some
sort of Passive Nihilism. It's not necessary to take up arms and battle
for Goodness, time and DQ will eventually guarantee that Goodness
prevails.
Believing that on a long enough Time Line Goodness will prevail is
certainly hopeful and noble, but I don't find it to be very realistic.
It relies much to much on the Benevolence of the Universe, when I
suspect the Universe is decidedly indifferent.
Enjoying this conversation,
Kevin
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 : Fri Dec 13 2002 - 22:11:34 GMT