From: Kevin (kevin@xap.com)
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 18:03:39 GMT
Platt said:
First, DQ always moves towards "Good" defined as greater levels of
freedom and versatility. This doesn't mean that new developments or
more complexity are always better.
Kevin:
I like this statement. I think you've tapped into something important.
It allows for degeneracy within the system without negating the
overiding drive of DQ towards something with more "freedom and
versatility". Of course, I guess the next question is freedom and
versatility to do what? Freedom and versatility for whom? For the
pattern evolving? Or for DQ itself?
Another thought along this line. Perhaps the force of DQ isn't towards
"freedom and versatility". Perhaps that is the reaction of the pattern
being acted upon by DQ. In other words, the evolutionary force of the
universe doesn't dictate the direction of change, it just gives the
push. The pattern/organism/idea chooses the direction of "freedom and
versatility" because of it's own need to propogate itself. It's own
survival in the face of Dynanic force and flux. Perhaps countless
patterns do NOT choose the direction of "freedom and versatility" after
DQ nudges them into flux and they do not survive. They dissappear. That
would explain why we seem to see the patterns that move towards "freedom
and versatility" and not the failed patterns. Any thoughts?
Platt also said:
Secondly, the MoQ presents a rational frame of reference or POV for
determining betterness, goodness, right and wrong. You can adopt or
reject it as you wish since every metaphysics, like every thought, is
POV-centric. (I presume POV means Point of View, not Pattern of
Value.)
To believe that betterness or goodness is "just subjective" reflects the
prevailing POV of moral relativity which Pirsig blames for "social
catastrophe" whereby the biological forces of sex, drugs, crime and
tyranny gain the upper hand. With no way to say why these forces are
wrong (since it all depends on personal, subjective POVs), society
becomes paralyzed, unable to act in its own defense, like a "spider
waiting while the wasp gets ready to attack it."
Kevin:
Well, I'm not sure I'd call moral relativity the "prevailing POV". At
least not in North America. Moral absolutists seem to be firmly in
control around here. Fear not, Platt:-)
Also, I'm surprised that you put sex and drugs in the same box as crime
and tyranny. I certainly wouldn't equate them and I'm hesistant to think
that Pirsig would.
More importantly, I'm starting to realize that you seem unflappable
about using relative terms like "better" in prescribing moral absolutes.
I find that a bit strange. It seems to me that the whole language of MOQ
is based on relatives (some things are simply better than others). It
doesn't bless certain things as Pure Good For All Time And Eternity.
As you've very clearly illustrated, it provides a useful framework for
making difficult decisions with moral authority based on ratios of
goodness (small g) which we consider to be "better". It should also be
noted that the "better" is fairly relative to the person making the
decision. Let's face it, the MOQ provides a framework for me to make
"better" moral choices that are "better" for me.
Platt again:
My POV-centric view is that Pirsig offers a better solution to the
problems that confront humanity than the "anything goes" POV-centric
view of moral relativists.
But, I could be wrong. (-:
Kevin:
Again I'm struck by your use of relative language here. I think it's
meaningful even if you didn't intend it to be.
I happen to agree with you that the MOQ provides a "better solution to
the problems that confront humanity" than many other ideologies. I
certainly wouldn't recommend "anything goes".
Your polite disclaimer about wrongness is also telling. It
deomonstrates, IMO, a healthy perspective about all decisions. We choose
what is "better" for ourselves (and the MOQ makes that considerably
easier in many cases) but we recognize that our choices are simply
relative evaluations of goodness rather than Universal Absolutes.
Otherwise, the MOQ would simply come up with it's own set of
Commandments and there would be no need for choosing at all.
With more hope than before,
Kevin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 : Wed Dec 11 2002 - 18:04:19 GMT