From: Kevin (kevin@xap.com)
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 22:24:41 BST
Hi all,
Johnny has become the newest grain of sand around which a pearl of
conversation is trying to protectivly form.
I can't say that I understand all of what Johnny is trying to say (his
stuff on expectation and love thoroughly confuse me) but I do think I
have some angle on at least on aspect of his project that has emerged in
the Burden of Proof and Intellectual Art (Dynamic Morality) threads.
I'd like to try and bring it together (hence new thread) and at least
test my theory (that I get something Johnny is on about) and see if the
pearl can be saved.
Johnny says:
There's still no problem, steve. Unless you are insane, or didn't
experience a common set of static patterns with the rest of us, most of
us
would agree with you on what we feel is actually better.
So we both see "moral" as meaning "actually better", but we seem to
disagree
about the role of culture and SQ in deciding the truth of what is
actually
better. You think it comes from 'outside' (along with such concepts as
"Truth" and "Beauty", I suppose), I don't think there is anything
'outside',
and better is determined by a consensus steeped in common static
patterns.
If you've got a crystal ball or something, and some way to quantify the
good, let us see it.
Kevin:
In this statement, I think I caught a glimpse of something at the
foundation of Johnny's POV (please correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps
it's just selective cognition because it reminds me of something I tried
to illuminate back in Dec in a thread called Progression and
Benevolence.
Namely, when we talk about "good", "true", "better", or "morally
superior" in MOQ, are they actually products of DQ or are they our own
projections? Johnny asks the same thing (I think) by speculating on
whether it's "outside" or something that comes from static patterns.
I think Johnny is attacking the notion that DQ is benevolent--i.e. that
it pushes towards "good" or "better" or "morally superior". I think he's
saying it's just a morally neutral push and deciding it's morality or
goodness comes much later and is a product of static patterns not DQ
(maybe this is the expectation part?).
Change happens. DQ pushes on static patterns and causes flux. We look at
how patterns cope and change in the face of this flux and we ascribe
Good or Bad to it. It's not that DQ is Benevolent or Malevolent (vested
in one outcome over another).
To quote myself from the Progress and Benevolence thread:
I'm reminded of the classic Chinese proverb regarding good luck and bad
luck. It follows:
There once was a farmer in China who had an ox. One day the ox ran away.
All his neighbors came to console him, but he was not distressed. He
told them, "Good luck, bad luck, who knows?" A few days later the ox
returned and with it was a horse. All his neighbors came to him to
congratulate him on his good fortune, but again he would not mind them
telling them, "Good luck, bad luck, who knows?" A week later his son was
riding the horse, fell and broke his arm. Again the neighbors came to
wish him condolences and tell him how very unlucky he was. The farmer
shook his head and said, "Good luck, bad luck, who knows?" A few days
later, war was declared and all able-bodied young men were conscripted,
but because on his son's broken arm, he was not. "Good luck, bad luck,
who knows?"
The quality of the luck is a subjective projection based on POV. None of
these events are inherently good or bad, they just are. Applying good or
bad is simply an exercise in coping skills--An attempt to assign either
benevolence or malice to the universe for the sake of our own interests.
In each instance, the Farmer refrains from
ascribing Benevolence or Malevolence to the Universe. When the ox runs
away, the Farmer does NOT bemoan the 'unfairness' of it all. Perhaps
even more telling, IMO, is that the Farmer does NOT take the opposite
view either, i.e. expressing the sentiment that "It will work out for
the best" or "God works in mysterious ways" or some other ascription of
Hope. The Farmer instead (and wisely, IMO) withholds his own petty,
finite, limited perspective and judgment and allows for the Universe to
decide whether this thing is bad or good.
The Farmer awaits the TAO.
Does this parallel your ideas somewhat, Johnny?
Anyone have thoughts about it?
-Kevin
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 : Thu Apr 03 2003 - 22:25:11 BST