Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Mon, 20 Jul 1998 20:03:04 +0100
Hi Keith, Clark, Theo and Squad,
KEITH IN SUMMARY:
>Well, that was a good four hours of blathering for me, quite enough for
>anyone's taste, I'm sure. If I had to wrap up my understanding of the
>Static/Dynamic split, I'd say something like: Dynamic Quality is the
>undivided whole of Reality, which is composed of pure Value. Dynamic
>Quality is known to us through Experience and intellectually understood
>as patterns of Static Quality. Dynamic Quality and Static Quality are
>not in themselves separate, but only through the act of dividing and
>naming for intellectual analysis do they appear so.
Keith, I agree that was a (genuinely) *GOOD* 4 hours of "blabbering" and
I basically agree with your way of looking at things. One area of
apparent disagreement is where I partly supported the DQ=energy idea.
Keith wrote:
>This is why I would argue, with Martin Striz and others, against
>identification of Dynamic Quality with, for example, energy. Energy is
>a fixed concept we use to relate the interaction of another fixed
>concept, matter. Both are Static Quality--patterns we've given names
to.
>Dynamic Quality is reality itself.
Actually, I'm doing a bit of doublethink on this. From my previous
post:-
>Generally, the Squad seems to like the idea of DQ being a driving force
>[and] Potential energy" is the driving force in thermodynamics....
>And yet, as soon as we pin potential/energy down more rigorously (as
>physicists do), we are firmly within the SQ realm".
So basically I agree with Keith. Nevertheless, I think that the
DQ/energy analogy is useful.
Some while back, I wrote:-
>Pirsig's metaphysics tries to be universal. The rules guiding the
>behaviour of molecules and the "moral" rules guiding humans
>are fundamentally the same, but operating at opposite ends
>of the scale of complexity.
I bring that up again because of the suggestion that "morality is
realisation of potential" can be interpreted both on a physical level
and a human level. I am suggesting that these interpretations are
analogous rather than the same.
CLARK:
> In my mind, the Morality we are talking about here has little to do
>with the soul and an afterlife and all to do with compatibility with
>the workings of the universe and particularly with the operation of the
>biosphere.
> I will be watching the discussions and trying to come up with a
>solution of my own. At the moment I am stumped. I hope we can keep the
>Greeks out of
Clark, I'd be interested in your reaction to my "morality is realisation
of potential" idea. Maybe you can keep the Greeks out, but you can't
keep out the Geeks:-)
In response to JONATHAN'S:
>>So how about it folks:- "Morality is realization of potential".
THEO wrote:
>My immediate thought here is that Hitler realised his potential to a
>great extent in the final solution and also in the creation of a master
>race. An atomic bomb realised its potential on Hiroshima. Were these
>then 'moral' acts.
>
>I think I understand your point here Jonathan, but are you not in
danger
>of following Ken in splitting human morality from the morality of the
>universe and if so, does this not trouble you? I repeat again my
>conviction that if human morality is reduced to individual desire then
>the MoQ has little practical worth regardless of its metaphysical
>veracity.
I think I may have a way around this objection. I previously made the
point that potential requires mechanism to be realised. From a given
point there may be many possible paths (mechanisms) downhill, but not
all of them will necessarily lead to same lowest point. I think that
Nazism was a PERVERSION or a DIVERSION. Morality was side-tracked.
Thankfully, a superior morality ultimately prevailed.
It is immoral to attempt to reverse the natural flow, but moral to
divert or attenuate the flow to facilitate it's movement down the best
channel. Examples of this approach can be found in engineering (drainage
design), medicine (toxic drugs), economics (government intervention) and
probably many other systems. Thus it is moral for the LS to restrict
(censor) discussion to focus on selected topics.
Jonathan
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST