From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Apr 10 2005 - 15:40:53 BST
Hi Scott,
I've snipped the stuff we agree on, although I'm sure there remains
plenty of room for the MOQ purists to disagree with both of us.
On 9 Apr 2005 at 12:57, Scott Roberts wrote:
Scott:
The MOQ claims to be empirical, but it isn't, no more than any other
metaphysics. It too depends on non-empirical moves.
msh says:
Has Pirsig claimed that the MOQ is "more" empirical than other
metaphysics? I don't even understand what this would mean. Pirsig
is quite clear that every metaphysics derives from unprovable
assumptions. I know we agree that the existence of Quality is
empirically verifiable; and it's empirically verifiable that every
sentient will move toward Quality if it is free to do so. How much
more empiricism do we need?
msh said:
Empiricism is meaningless without sentient beings. If your complaint
is that empiricism has no meaning at the inorganic level, except
insofar as it interacts with living beings, then I agree with you.
Scott:
No, my complaint is that the way MOQ and its defenders stretch the
use of the word 'empirical' to cover the whole metaphysics is, (a)
incoherent, and (b) a debasing of the word 'empirical'.
msh says:
The MOQ defenders come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes. Can
you direct me to a Pirsig passage where he distorts and debases the
word "empirical." I'm not saying your wrong, I just want some
textual support for the basis of further discussion.
scott:
It is a good concept to distinguish science from pseudo-science, but
a bad concept to apply to metaphysics.
msh says:
If your talking about the concept of empiricism I have to disagree.
Without the empirical verification of the existence of Quality, the
MOQ is worthless. Which means the Moral Hierarchy is worthless, and
I won't stand for that! :-)
Scott said:
I'm not arguing for or against the statement (in fact, I think I
agree with it, given the qualification). I'm just asking what makes
the statement empirical.
msh says:
I'm not sure what statement you mean. The more dynamic is better
than the less dynamic? This statement isn't part of the MOQ, as far
as I know. This is just another way of saying that change is always
good, which is obviously false. I think that DQ-inspired change away
from established patterns is always good. And this, I think, is
empirically verifiable, right down to the amoeba moving away from the
drop of acid.
Scott:
The statement was: "all else being equal, the more dynamic is better
than the less dynamic." It is the basis for saying that intellectual
morality trumps social morality, etc., so it is definitely part of
the MOQ, its linchpin, in fact.
msh says:
Here I think we need some semantic clarification. You seem to be
using the word "dynamic" as a synonym for DQ, while I'm applying its
dictionary meaning of "characterized by continuous change, or
activity." If we can agree to rephrase your statement as I did
above, "DQ-inspired change away from established patterns is always
good," then I think we can proceed.
scott:
That is, the higher levels are higher because they offer more dynamic
freedom.
msh says:
Whoa. Here I think you badly misunderstand the nature of the Moral
Hierarchy, or I do. My understanding is that the higher levels are
higher because they are further along the evolutionary path toward
Quality, that is, toward moral perfection. The Inorganic gives
rise to the Biological, which allows the evolution of the Social,
which forms the foundation for the Intellectual, which is the current
end point of our moral evolution. In this sense, the higher levels
are closer to Quality, and THIS is why higher takes precedence over
lower. It is immoral to allow biological patterns to destroy social
patterns, just as it is immoral for social patterns to impede,
restrict or destroy intellectual patterns, because to do so is
degenerate.
So I think we need some further discussion here.
scott:
After all, shouldn't one be suspicious when those who enjoy
intellectual activities (such as philosophizing) claim that
intellectual morality takes precedence?
msh says:
See above.
scott:
Now I do think that intellectual morality takes precedence, but I
would not claim that it does because the empirical facts show that it
does.
msh says:
Well, again, we really need to resolve the issue above. It is
empirically verifiable that each level depends upon the existence of
the previous level. It is empirically verifiable that Quality
exists. If we can agree that evolution is occurring, and that we are
evolving toward Quality, perhaps asymptotically approaching Moral
Perfection, then I think we're on the same page.
Later,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html 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 : Sun Apr 10 2005 - 17:05:01 BST