ROGER CONTINUES FEEDBACK ON THE SUPPOSED TOPIC OF THE MONTH.
ALSO, HE REATTACHES HIS REVISED MORALITY “PROOF” BECAUSE HE
SCREWED UP THE TYPING AGAIN AND IT WAS SHREDDED!
To:Bodvar and Horse (and Walter if you are out there)
BO WRITES:<<<<<<<<<<<
I think Roger has made a great contribution with his morality chart,
it may prove very valuable in accessing the MOQ quickly. Reminds me
of the distance tables in geographical books and atlases with ist
"staggered" position of same items on two axes. Splendid! Perhaps you
could make it into a graphic picture with lines and boxes?>>>>>
Thanks for the encouragement. I still find it useful, even though I replaced
it with a
different chart that didn’t assume that QE’s require Domination. Is the
replacement chart
clearer? And yea, feel free to add anything to it , including new levels (no
pattents are
pending!). By the way, dead Bohr was meant to represent a biological disease
killing a
scientist...... therefore affecting intellectual patterns. The post and new
chart follow.
Roger wrote in another post Sat 21 Nov.:<<<<
> I have seen a huge pattern of posts pointing to a better definition
> of the Intellectual level's definition. I agree with the need to
> define it better. It seems to me that it is includes something along
> the lines of "patterns formed by the values of developing logically
> consistent models of reality". I know this skates up close to SOM,
> but I think we can keep from going over the edge.>>>>>
BO REPLIES:<<<<<<<
Why not go over the edge and simply define Q-Intellect as SOM (or
stripped of it's M: S-O logic)? That way S-O is truly and permanently
contained by the MOQ. All other definitions are doomed to run into
difficulties. It's inevitable; the top level having a "binge" period
as top notch assuming a posture of being REALITY itself =S-O
Metaphysics! Only recently has one dared to point to its lack of
clothing.>>>>>>>>>>
Even though I see this whole 4th level as needing clarification, I do see SOM
contained
in Intellect. I see MOQ self referentially contained in there too. I am not
ready to jump
yet...... give me time!
HORSE WRITES:<<<<<<<<<<
Ethics is a tricky subject and often confusing and frustrating, especially as
the
basis of any ethical system is Value. Add to that the SOM premiss that value,
being subjective, is no more than mere opinion and, basically, you're stuffed.
Once Quality/Value is seen as the source of 'reality' the landscape alters
and
we're back in with a chance. Thank you RMP. >>>>>>>>>>
Personally, I have been amazed by the deviation from these MOQ concepts this
month.
We started with several rebels trying to put social values on top of
intellect, then several
members tried to put socialist egalitarianism forward as a system
intellectually superior
to freedom. Next, morality itself was dismissed as too ‘relative’. Several
folks are now
saying we should follow gut or instinct , and the latest assault accuses
Pirsig of being a
sexist due to his use of plot devices.
(By the way am I the only one that sees the common threads of
misunderstandings in the
above?)
Horse, your posts have been like a safe harbor in some seriously choppy seas.
HORSE :<<<<<<I'm pretty sure that we'll come up
against the Consistency and Completenes problem so it's probably better to go
for Consistency from the outset. With that in mind, your own excellent post,
Keith's evolutionary post and Walters multiple dimensions approach we could
have a good chance of making some headway. My own bias is to approach this
from the direction of a rights-based system for the simple reason that a
system of
rights can be written down. Additionally, a rights based system has the chance
to
balance reason and compassion. That isn't to say it can be pinned down but
when an ethical system is to be constructed it's handy to provide a written
document stating what rights exist and how they relate to responsibilities.
Admittedly, it's a more static form, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but
it does
provide for a means to modify mistakes which may are made. It's also more
tangible than a system which espouses 'Duty' or 'the greatest good for the
greatest number' or 'virtue' etc. which all become a lot more nebulous
eventually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am willing to give it a try. Any other volunteers?
HORSE:<<<<<<<<Greater stability of the pattern within the level
leads to greater longevity of that pattern. Unfortunately, from the point of
view of
the pattern within the level it does not exist in isolation. Patterns within a
level
exist in relation to other patterns within an overall environment and
interaction
occurs. It is the interaction of the individual patterns within a level which
gives rise
to change.It is a balance between the forces of morality - VALUE - within and
between
the levels which leads to the greatest morality. Stability AND change are
essential
components>>>>>>>>>>>
Did my most recent post capture this better?
HORSE:<<<<<<<<
I suppose that the main idea that I am trying to express is that of balance.
It is
the balance between resistance to change and insistence upon change that
appears to lead to the best outcome within and between levels. Too much
dynamic (positive feedback) and the system overloads and is destroyed, too
much static (negative feedback) and the system comes to a halt and dies. This
puts me in mind of Watt's Governor, which controls the pressure in a steam
engine. The Quality engine powers the train of existence - watch out for those
bends!>>>>>>>>>>
I like this concept.
HORSE:<<<<<<<<<
In constructing a moral system based on the MoQ principles we have to
try and get the right balance between moral actions within and between levels.
A
system based purely on intellectual value would be an incomplete (and sterile)
moral system. But it is the utilization of the intellect that enables the
balance of
right actions at different levels to achieve an overall balanced moral system.
Too
much dynamic value at any level damages the overall system as does too much
static value.
And intellectual patterns provide a means by which social patterns may grow
and
flourish (democracy, justice, Declaration of Rights, freedom of information
etc.)
whilst maintaining intellectual independence which may not be subsumed by
social patterns.The intellectual patterns that needlessly damage the society
from
which it evolved damages the means to sustain itself and acts immorally,
whilst
the society which seeks to suppress or degrade intellectual patterns also acts
immorally.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I tried to capture this concept in the holistic definition of Intellectual .
Let me know if it
is on course.
Roger
Below is hopefully a more readable version of Friday's post.
******************************************************************************
*
Friday's Post
ROGER AGAIN TRIES TO PROVE THAT THE MOQ IS A BREAKTHROUGH IN
PRECISE ANALYSIS OF MORALITY.
Glove, Bo, Horse and others,
Based on your suggestions, I have completely revised my "proof" that shows how
to use
the MOQ to analyze morality. It includes a complete rewrite of my morality
chart too.
Be warned though, this is an interactive post which will require action on
your part to
even understand it. It continues to be work-in-progress. Tear it up!
Morality Axioms
1. Reality is Composed of Quality Events
2. Quality Events Involve Value Interactions
3. Quality Events Create the Subject and Object Patterns (SPOV's).
Question: Do you agree with this so far? This is pure MOQ in my opinion. My
next
three are revised completely based upon your input.
4. Static Patterns of Value Require Continuous Interaction To Continue to
Exist
This arises from point #3. A thing which has no value does not exist. Absence
of quality
events is actually absence of existence. The point I want to emphasize is
that patterns
continuously experience QE's and "change" yet they maintain a consistency to
the
pattern. These essential quality events actually occur in two dimensions. To
explain, let
me use an example.Consider a laser light show. Imagine a laser tracing the
pattern of a
man on a screen. The man isn't moving, but the laser beam is. Freeze the
beam, and the man's outline collapses to a dot. The static pattern collapses
without the underlying
changing QE's of the photons bouncing off the screen. On the other dimension,
the
outline of the man can change too. The pattern can trace the outline of the
man running.
In this case, the pattern CONTINUES but it CHANGES. Replace photons with
electrons
and protons and you describe a physical object (a man) who is further
"created" by his
value interaction.
5. Not All Dynamic Interactions Result in Pattern Emergence or Continuance
Interaction can and does often result in pattern deterioration, destruction or
chaos.
Stopping the laser; crushing a rock; killing a man.
6. Successful Patterns Value Dynamic Continuance and Do Not Value Pattern
Discontinuance.
I completely disagree that patterns resist ALL change. They resist changes
that harm the
pattern. Lions like change if it means eating a gazelle. Religions like
change in new
members. Clearly, patterns do resist fundamental pattern re-definition or
destruction
though. Also, since unknown change is potentially catastrophic to a pattern,
they tend to
act "conservatively".
Question: Do you agree with points 4-6? What am I missing?
7. Patterns Can Be Categorized into Four Distinct Levels
8. The Levels Are Defined by the Primary Forces of Value Shaping Patterns At
That Level
9. The Four Levels Are Defines as Patterns Created By:
The Values/Forces of Physics (Inorganic).
The Biological Values of Survival/Procreation (Inorganic Synergy).
The Values of Socialization (Inorganic/Biological Synergy).
The Values of Truth, Logic and Freedom (Holistic Synergy).
10. The Morality of a Quality Event is Measured By It's Impact on Pattern
Continuance and Advancement
11. The Immorality of a Quality Event is Measured by the Harm or Destruction
it Has on Patterns
The above two points are complicated by several issues. First, a pattern
doesn't always
"know" in advance if a quality event or interaction will help or hurt.
Therefore,successful
patterns have a characteristic of being "conservative" or resistant to change,
even change
that may result in improvement.
The second complication is that harm that doesn't destroy a pattern can
actually result in
a strengthening or advancement of the pattern. The MOQ does not eliminate
uncertainty
about the future.
12. There Are Two Distinct Perspectives to Evaluate Morality-PATTERN MORALITY
and HOLISTIC MORALITY
Pattern Morality is much easier to evaluate, though it is complicated by the
uncertainty-of-the-future issues mentioned above. In general, from the point
of view of
the pattern, it is moral for a lion to eat a gazelle, or for a society to
assume control of
another society, etc.
Holistic Morality is a new term which I am introducing for clarification, but
I believe it is
implicit in how MOQ defines morality from the perspective of the higher
levels. For
example, from the perspective of a society, morality is comprised of the net
holistic
pattern continuance/advancement of the underlying biological (its citizens and
ecology),
and inorganic (its buildings and roads), and of the top level itself (its laws
and religions).
Similarly, from the intellectual level, the morality of an event includes the
holistic
morality of all four levels. Holistic morality as I use it is therefore
morality from the
Univeral Intellectual Level. It is convenient, because it reminds us that we
need to
consider the underlying levels, but feel free to discard it if you choose.
Evaluating holistic (intellectual) morality is even tougher than evaluating
morality from
the perspective of the pattern. Not only do we face the two issues of future
uncertainty,
we also must evaluate all patterns at all levels that are affected by a given
Quality Event
and evaluate the complexity/DQ of each pattern and the relative degree of
pattern
harm/benefit.
To add some structure to this extremely complex process, I have devised a
chart to
evaluate the morality of any quality event/interaction. This is completely
revised from
last week's chart. The old one simply couldn't handle the most important
dimensions.
The prior chart's major shortcoming was that it assumed that one pattern has
to
"dominate" in an interaction. This is not true, so I have discarded it.
To understand this new chart, I need you to take two or three minutes to build
the chart.
On a blank piece of paper, draw a chart comprised of four columns and four
rows. This
creates 16 distinct boxes............. Come on, do it................... The
columns represent the impact to the first pattern of interaction. Label the
1st column "Destruction". Second
Column "Harm". The Third "No Change", and the Fourth Column "Advancement".
Above the four columns write "Pattern A".
Next, label the rows. This time start with "Advancement", then "No Change",
then
"Harm", and the fourth row is "Destruction". These four rows are titled
"Pattern B".
Have you done this? If so, you now have 16 boxes which allow you to
graphically
evaluate the outcome of a quality event. The top left box (A Destruction/B
Advancement) should be numbered box 1. Number sequentially across, then start
with
box 5 on the second row left and continue until all boxes are numbered. The
numbers
will make it easier to reference.
Now look at the patterns that converge. Boxes 9, 10, 13 and 14 are totally
immoral from
the level of both patterns, and holistically. Boxes 5, 6, 11 and 15 are
immoral holistically
and of no advancement to either pattern. So, half our possibilities are
clearly immoral.
Examples include mutual particle destruction (13), or vandalizing a building
(either 9 or
14, depending on which pattern you label as the vandal).
Boxes 3, 4, 7 and 8 on the other hand, are moral from the perspectives of
both patterns
and holistically (intellectually). When husband marries a wife, it is an
example of box 4.
Reading a book could be represented by box 3 or 8.
Now for the tough boxes, numbers 1, 2, 12 and 16. Here we have relative
morality. One
pattern benefits, at the expense of the other. This is where holistic
morality is difficult
to assess. A lion eats a gazelle (box 1 or 16), US bombs Japan, Rapist does
victim,
woman aborts fetus. Here, holistic morality needs to be weighed carefully by
evaluating
the level of the pattern, the amount of harm vs advancement, etc.
Better yet though is that this chart clearly shows the path toward DQ. It is
synergy and
cooperation. Rather than arguing whether Japan or the US is more moral, the
clear
answer is that they should try to co-exist and trade and exchange for mutual
benefit. The
most moral choice for abortion is clearly to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
Pirsig states that the MOQ allows us "to analyze moral arguments with greater
precision
than before". Clearly, this is correct. If MOQ becomes the predominant
metaphysical
world view, I predict over time we will be able to make huge advances from our
current
level of understanding. Clearly, it is a momentous advance over relative
cultural morals
and "gut feeling".
Please be critical and let me know where you agree and disagree.
Roger Parker
PS If you did the chart, it should look similar to below.
PATTERN A
PATTERN B Dest Harm N/C Adv
Adv 1 2 3 4
N/C 5 6 7 8
Harm 9 10 11 12
Dest 13 14 15 16
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:40 BST