From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Fri May 28 2004 - 18:55:52 BST
Hi MarkM, and all,
MarkM, glad you're enjoying the Chomsky.
Mark 28-5-04: Hi Mark H, Thank you.
I like your parallel of Asimov's laws of robotics in summarizing the
MOQ. Here's what you wrote:
1. Static Quality may obey its own laws except where such laws would
conflict with DQ.
2. Static Quality must respond to DQ except where such responses
would restrict DQ.
3. Static Quality must protect its own existence as long as such
protection does not conflict with the first or second law.
msh says:
My question, for anyone, is can the above formulation be integrated
into my stab at defining a moral society? Would using the terms SQ
and DQ in my definition make things clearer and more useful? Or not?
Here's mine again:
"Societal institutions (Static social values) that restrict or impede the
free flow and
interaction of ideas (Dynamic intellectual evolution) are immoral, especially
if such ideas (Static intellectual values) are
critical of existing institutions (Static social values). It is immoral for
institutions (Static social values) to
in any way restrict individual freedom (DQ) to act and react in response
to biological drives (Static biological values), or in response to other
institutions (Static social values), or in
response to the free interchange of ideas (Dynamic Intellectual evolution),
unless such activity
threatens morally superior institutions (Static social/intellectual values)
or can be shown to eliminate
or restrict such freedom (DQ) for others."
Mark 28-5-04: I feel the terms SQ and DQ should always be used when using the
MOQ. I took a liberty and inserted these terms in your description, but i am
not sure you will agree with me? I'm not sure i agree with me!
This is beginning to look a tad messy? But i still like it.
I'm going to introduce coherence here, because i feel it can be shown that
coherence is an appropriate way of illustrating levels as processes.
Coherence is excellence, and is therefore the ideal state for any level or
situation by definition. Therefore, the Moral Evolution of society is towards
greater coherence.
At this point we may introduce tension between other levels as states of
coherence. Each morally superior level modifies the coherent nature of
levels/coherence above/below it in a stable all-level coherence.
By now it may be dawning on some people that this description is an abstract
of Utopia. I believe it to be the best abstract for Utopia there is.
Utopia is a fine ideal to wish for; it's one mighty great sweet spot; but we
have to live in the real world, as you bravely recognise. There may be more
than one Utopia? Perhaps there is a Utopia appropriate to each level of
evolution? What places on Earth act as great attractors for each of these Utopia
today? Berkeley, California for the Intellectual? Hollywood for the social? Las
Vegas for the biological? New York for the all out Dynamic? Broad brush strokes
here. I'm thinking out loud and just going with it. I look forward to any
positive results which may emerge from this thread.
All the best,
Mark M.
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 : Fri May 28 2004 - 18:57:50 BST