From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Jun 11 2004 - 04:53:44 BST
Hi Johnny,
Ok, no more talk of talking past. I see how it might be regarded as
dismissive, though that was not my intention. Well, maybe a little.
msh:
>My idea, at this time, is that "moral" behavior at the social level
>is behavior fully informed by DQ, to the extent permitted by the
>society's current institutions. My idea is that everyone may avail
>themselves of DQ to this extent, but that not everyone does, for a
>variety of reasons, including that SQ, which is both Static Quality
>and Status Quo, is more comfortable and less fearful for THEM.
jm:
I agree that all moral behavior, on all levels, is that which is
fully informed by DQ, but I define DQ as "right", and define "right"
as that which does what it should, follows the pattern. ...
So what happens is, some patterns lose their respect and we no longer
expect them to continue...
msh says:
Your notion of "respect" is new to this discussion, and remains
undefined, I think. But it doesn't matter: all of this is just your
way of explaining people's desire to cling to old patterns without
having to inject the notion of DQ and the MoQ's clearly defined moral
hierarchy. It's a different metaphysics. My notion is that people
resist change because change is uncomfortable for them, a biological
resistance. And that most people will resist change EVEN if they get
a glimpse of DQ working the levers behind the screen, because the
biological impulse is very strong, and because fear is very
uncomfortable. Why is your explanation better than mine?
As for the idea that there is no conflict between DQ and SQ, I guess
I just don't understand this. You seem to agree that DQ "agitates"
SQ value patterns. Isn't this a kind of conflict? Almost everyone
in this forum talks about DQ-SQ tension. How can there be tension
without conflict?
>msh says:
>Compare systems that provide health care for profit with
>those that fund it for everyone from a community base. Which of the
>two is of higher social morality, using DQ as its measure?
jm:
Whichever one you think. How do you use DQ as a measure? You mean
which one is the most different from the Status Quo? Or which is
most "right"?
msh says:
I mean, which one produces the highest quality health outcome for the
most people, using the MoQ's clearly defined hierarchy of quality.
jm:
But in and of themselves, just as patterns, in a vacuum, I don't see
how they can be compared. I'm for both, myself. I think private
health care should be heavily taxed, like 100%, so that it can help
fund public health care.
msh says:
But who's saying they should be compared just as patterns in a
vacuum? I say compare them as they manifest themselves in the real
world, by all and any means.
And, I like your 100% tax solution. However, taxing at 100% means
taking away the profit. So we're no longer talking about health care
for profit which takes the meaning out of my original comparison.
>Would I change my mind and not the metaphysics? I can say only
that
>I have changed my mind numerous times, about a wide variety of
>issues, when confronted with persuasive evidence and argument; I did
>not change the rules of logic and evidence. What I'm looking for
>here is evidence and argument within the framework of the MoQ,
>because that's what this forum is about.
jm:
Right, it is the evidence and argument that persuades, not merely a
person asserting that one is more DQ, or at a higher level. That's
just a redundant way of saying that it has already won, in their
mind.
msh says:
You're right, it would be redundant if it was merely asserted. What
I'm saying is the evidence and argument, if persuasive, will indicate
that one result is of higher quality than another, and, in the MoQ,
that means we go with the higher quality solution. Note: this will
not work if one rejects the hierarchy of morality, as presented in
the MoQ. So, if you reject it, and I don't, it's Miller Time. Ya
know?
>jm:
>For me, it is helpful in showing how everything is morality and how
>important it is to respect morality and contninue to expect
morality
>to continue, for morality's sake.
>
>msh says:
>I agree completely, using my idea of morality, as previously
>described.
msh says:
This was a mistake. Sorry. I meant to say "your" not "my", as I did
before. I caught this after I posted, but thought I'd wait for your
response. So, I'll send it back to you.
jm:
I'm trying to show that we need to respect that patterns continue
whether we like them or not...
We have to be careful of respecting bad patterns...
msh says:
I can't understand what this means, because you haven't explained
what you mean by "respect." I do think you outta be careful,
however, when you start implying that the Reagan administration
brought about some hight-quality change for the world. A little DQ
reading of history might be advisable.
>jm:
>How would you apply the MoQ? As long as by real people you take a
>long term view, and keep certain principles of human dignity and
>freedom in mind, and don't get influenced by a few sob stories, then
>sure, we should look at the effects ideas have on people and do what
>we think would be best.
>
>msh says:
>Hmmm. I agree. But I suspect that your idea of sob stories might
be
>considerably different than mine. Maybe not. I'm pretty sure that
>Platt's idea of sob stories and mine would differ dramatically.
jm:
I was thinking of pulling out the 12 year old cancer patient to
promote spending ever more on health care...
msh says:
Well sure. That's a sob story in anybody's book. But you excised the
following from my post:
"Anyway, I would apply the MoQ by examining goals, and possible
actions and results. If a goal is seen to be DQ inspired then, if
one action is likely to result in the mass slaughter of defenseless,
non-threatening organisms, while another, directed toward the same
goal, is not, then it is "morally imperative" that we choose the
second."
It's the mass slaughter of defenseless, non-threatening organisms
that I'm talking about, not a sob story.
>jm:
>Um, maybe interesting would have been a better word than useful,
>then. I guess useful in terms of understanding that all things are
>moral patterns, so we shouldn't disparage morality, as it is the
very
>earth we walk on. I think that is useful, to respect moralty.
>
>msh says:
>Talking past, as described at the beginning of this post.
jm:
You don't agree? See, I think this is what makes morality function.
Anyone that starts to suggest that morality should not be respected
begins to undermine the very ontological foundation of everything.
Gravity is endangered, the earth would stop rotating, the sun would
stop shining.
msh:
But I do respect morality, using my definition of the term. Using
your definition of "morality", and the so-far undefined "respect,"
seems to result in, well, just the sort of absurdities you list
above. When people, let's say the earth's population minus however
many metaphysicians there are, speak of morality they're not talking
about what molecules or rocks do, or what dogs and cats do; they're
talking about what people do, and not about what MOST people do.
They're talking about what people SHOULD do. They are talking about
DQ, even if they don't know it.
> >msh said:
> >As this imparts to yourself a better understanding of what I do
and
> >why, than I myself have, I don't see how I can reply.
>
>jm:
>Well, I don't understand it either. I'm just saying that cultural
>patterns influence us, and we aren't usually conscious of exactly
>when or how our influences manifest themselves. Do you feel you
>understand why you do everything you do?
>
>msh says:
>Absolutely not. I am, however, suggesting that it's likely that I
>know more about what I do, and why, than someone who is not me.
jm:
How do you explain the psychiatry profession then?
msh says:
Don't get me started. I guess the psychiatry profession is like any
other, say like boxing. For every Muhammad Ali there's a million
thugs beating the bejesus out of someone for a paycheck. For every
Freud...
Sid Trivus, bless him, one of my teachers while "doing" philosophy at
UCLA, in the dark backward and abysm of time, had a great crack about
psychiatrists. He said, "You know, when they've got you in the room,
and YOU start analyzing THEM, they say 'You're repressing... you're
repressing!' So whaddaya do after that? Pop open a beer and get out
the racing form is my suggestion."
jm:
It is usually hard to see why we do things, and often it is easier
for someone else to see.
msh says:
Right. Which is why, if we are lucky, we have a few mates, as
Crocadile Dundee might say. For fun, you might compare the per
capita number of psychiatrists in Manhattan with same in Somalia or
Bangladesh, where they could really use some.
jm:
I'm not saying I can tell you anything about why you do stuff, or
that anyone could, I am just saying that people are influenced by
morality without realizing it. They think it is just their will, but
the will is like a weathervane in cultural winds.
msh says:
Ok. That image is so fully informed by DQ I'll concede the point on
principle.
>msh said:
>And I see DQ as something (bad word) that, under the best societal
>circumstances, will agitate the society's SQ patterns toward higher
>Quality.
jm:
Phew! That would suck if it agitated toward lower quality. We are
so lucky.
msh says:
Whoops. Now THAT is dismissive. My point is that under less than
optimum societal circumstances, where the free flow and interchange
of ideas is impeded, something other than DQ will most assuredly
agitate toward LOWER quality.
>msh says:
>Again, what causes the variations? What drives people to try
>different things?
jm:
Different circumstances. A guy who lives under an apple tree, and
who has a bow and arrow, might try shooting at apples, whereas a guy
who lives near the sea with a boat might try fishng.
msh says:
So you pretty much discount the light bulb over the head idea. It's
all just a matter of people trying different stuff, with lotsa lotsa
failures, till something finally works. For me, it's DQ that keeps
the guy who lives at the beach, with an apple tree, from throwing
fish at the apples.
>jm:
>They fit in with other patterns in harmonious ways, so they were
>appreciated.
>
>msh says:
>And I say that this "harmony" is another name for DQ.
jm:
I say it is patterns that reinforce each other and make themselves
stronger symbioticly.
msh says:
I say toemaytoe, you say toemato. Let's say it's Miller Time.
Thanks,
msh
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." --
Henri Poincare'
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 Jun 11 2004 - 04:53:24 BST