From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Tue Apr 12 2005 - 18:47:18 BST
On Saturday 09 April 2005 12:41 PM Scott writes to Mark:
[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. That is, the higher levels are higher because they offer
more dynamic freedom. But how is it empirical? (Your example of the amoeba
is fulfilling an established pattern, not any evidence of changing one.)
Yes, we all experience value, and many of us see greater value in finding
new patterns than in sticking with old ones, but isn't this a statement of
preferences, and not of empirical fact? After all, shouldn't one be
suspicious when those who enjoy intellectual activities (such as
philosophizing) claim that intellectual morality takes precedence?
[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.
In fact,
the MOQ's ultimate justification for this, as I understand it, is an appeal
to mysticism (to establish the reality of DQ). Of course, it tries to make
out that this is an empirical move, but it isn't. It depends on an a priori
selecting out of certain mystical strains and ignoring others.
Hi Scott, Mark and all,
When I try to describe 'the tsunami' in MOQ terms I do not find 'morality'
but a 'disaster'. It is difficult to apply 'higher' and 'lower' to the
undefined dynamic. 'Actions speak louder than words!' All of my life, until
I read Pirsig I accepted that 'truth' comes before 'good'. I don't jump on a
horse and ride off in all directions. I go a certain direction. Mystical and
logical. I want to jump on the horse and go! Who cares where! "That's a good
dog"!
IMO evolution produces empirical results. The law of gravity is an
intellectual formulation. Laws can be broken, e.g., anti-gravity. IMO
quality in a mystic sense is empirical like gravity. The MOQ is a law of
quality. In the case of 'the tsunami' for the people killed, the more
dynamic was not better. The MOQ morality was broken, and in the previous
statement I see the word 'dynamic' change to 'active' in meaning. The law of
morality.
Using Gurdjieff's formulation which he claims came from historical records,
I see a law of three for everything, active, passive and neutral. The
dynamic is law conformable, and in morality intellect, social, organic are
proper levels, when the center of gravity is in the more basic law of three.
IMO active (DQ), passive (SQ), neutral (DQ/SQ) are moral. The inorganic
evolves manifestations of three. Immoral philosophy? Immoral science?
Immoral politics? Immoral acts?
Joe
> Mark,
>
> msh says:
> [snip]
> So.... I guess I'd say I "prefer" the preference interpretation at
> the inorganic level because it allows a more symmetrical metaphysics
> overall. Better style, you know. Higher quality.
>
> Scott:
> I can accept that -- that is more or less why I prefer the preference
> interpretation as well. But that is not an empirical justification, and
> that
> is all I am trying to point out. 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:
> Again, I see no point other than symmetry of thought, just another
> preference. 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'. It is a good concept to
> distinguish
> science from pseudo-science, but a bad concept to apply to metaphysics.
>
> scott said:
> Both are saying something about what is "really going on" at the
> subatomic level, but both have no way of showing it. To be able to
> show it, I would think, is what we mean when we say our claim is
> empirical.
>
> msh:
> We've gone full circle, I think. At the level of the elements, the
> preference interpretaion is a descriptive choice, not an empirical
> fact.
>
> Scott:
> That's all I wanted to bring out with this example.
>
> 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. That is, the higher levels are higher because they
> offer
> more dynamic freedom. But how is it empirical? (Your example of the amoeba
> is fulfilling an established pattern, not any evidence of changing one.)
> Yes, we all experience value, and many of us see greater value in finding
> new patterns than in sticking with old ones, but isn't this a statement of
> preferences, and not of empirical fact? After all, shouldn't one be
> suspicious when those who enjoy intellectual activities (such as
> philosophizing) claim that intellectual morality takes precedence?
>
> 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. In fact,
> the MOQ's ultimate justification for this, as I understand it, is an
> appeal
> to mysticism (to establish the reality of DQ). Of course, it tries to make
> out that this is an empirical move, but it isn't. It depends on an a
> priori
> selecting out of certain mystical strains and ignoring others.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Tue Apr 12 2005 - 19:00:24 BST