From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jun 10 2004 - 22:34:18 BST
Hi Mark,
>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.
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 water is fully informed by DQ
when it freezes at 32F. A husband is fully informed by DQ whan he is nice
to his wife. There is no conflict between DQ and SQ. Because there are so
many patterns, patterns thwart each other all the time, and this is right,
also. The strongest, most valued and respected patterns resist being
thwarted. So what happens is, some patterns lose their respect and we no
longer expect them to continue, we rather expect other patterns to
strengthen themselves and thwart the other patterns, because they currently
have more strength and respect. But more often, people continue to respect
the old patterns, and do not respect the new patterns, and so the old
patterns win out and continue.
>msh says:
>It wouldn't have to be my MoQ-based analysis, it could be anybody's,
>which is why I've asked people in that thread to give it a shot. Wim
>objects to my list of possibly immoral institutions because he thinks
>he needs to compare them to something else, in order to proceed. I
>say fine. 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?
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"? I
think both are respected static patterns , both are high quality, and both
can be expected to continue. Empirical data and persuasive arguments for
either of them could change the respect given each one, and then one would
be more expected to continue than the other one. 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.
>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.
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.
>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.
I don't see how that is helpful at all, you are just asserting that things
you like are better, and using the MoQ as a way to add words to your
argument. I'm trying to show that we need to respect that patterns continue
whether we like them or not, and be wary of setting expectations and
examples that form patterns, because those patterns will continue if they
are expected to. We have to be careful of respecting bad patterns, like the
way pre-Reagan America respected the Soviet Bloc and the Cold War, and even
eventual nuclear anihilation, as an unchangable pattern. It's like when you
ride a motorcycle through a corner, look through the corner. Never look at
the tree, because that's where you will go. You go where you look. To
change a pattern you don't like, you first have to respect how it operates
as a pattern, and then form an even stronger expectation that will replace
it. No shortcuts, just plain old persuasion and hard work. "Thus, I willed
it."
>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.
I was thinking of pulling out the 12 year old cancer patient to promote
spending ever more on health care. At a certain point, you have to accept
that there will always be sick people to pull out, and there may be a
downside to over-spending on health care, or, at least not as much of an
upside as is worth it. At a certain point, you have to tell the 12 year old
sorry, there's no more we can do for you. I say that point is here now, but
then, I don't have cancer (but I'm working on it).
>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.
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 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.
How do you explain the psychiatry profession then? It is usually hard to
see why we do things, and often it is easier for someone else to see. 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:
>And I see DQ as something (bad word) that, under the best societal
>circumstances, will agitate the society's SQ patterns toward higher
>Quality.
Phew! That would suck if it agitated toward lower quality. We are so
lucky.
>msh says:
>Again, what causes the variations? What drives people to try
>different things?
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. I don't see the confusion.
>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.
I say it is patterns that reinforce each other and make themselves stronger
symbioticly.
>msh says:
>Maybe not. We'll see if you agree with my ideas regarding "talking
>past."
I'd prefer we not use that term. It seems dismissive to me. We are up
front about how we are using words, I'm trying to explain myself as best I
can.
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
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 Jun 10 2004 - 22:36:39 BST