Roger, Horse, Ken, Jonathan, Squad,
I know I'm going against the rules seeing that the morality topic is closed, but I permit myself to react to
the great posts of Roger and Horse that returned the discussion about morality to the basis, the position
from where, I think, the whole discussion has to start.
Ken wrote:
> I am leaning toward the idea that the basis for Pirsig's Quality lies in the universe
> itself and that Quality as it affects life and humanity is just a by product of the overarching
> Quality of the universe. If this is so then it seems to me that perhaps we should begin
> with universal Quality in mind and recognize that human Quality should fit within the overall
> requirements of universal Quality. I suspect that such an approach would alleviate many of
> the value and morality problems we are having when we view the human situation in isolation
This is exactly what I feel and for which I welcomed Keith's post, because it emphasized the bottom-up
approach of Morality, which starts with
- EVERYTHING EXISTING PATTERN HAS VALUE AND IS MORAL
Like I stated before, in this view (the universal) there is NO IMMORALITY. This is more than a rational
thought, you have to 'feel'/experience this one.
Roger, I loved your chart and I see what you want to do with the statements you made. You and Horse
(and myself) did something similar at the end of the 'What is DQ?' topic. I still hope you and Horse can
reflect on my final post (the one about the grandmother). In the following I tried to reduce the number
of statements you made to a view.
First, there are two mayor divisions I would like to make discussing Morality
(note: I don't say they're different, neither do I say they're opposed to eachother)
1 The division of universal morality and human morality;
2 The division of morality of patterns and the morality of events (forming of a new pattern).
1) Universal morality - Human morality
Jonathan puts it somewhat blunt, saying:
> I now realise that it is stupid to talk about "morality" from anything other than
> the human perspective... Intellect is nothing more than a tool for analysing the
> likely outcome of alternative behaviours.
I agree with him in so far that I see that human morality is more complex. I think this is due to the
fact that human beings are conscious and therefore can foresee and control future patterns.
I won't go into this too far, because I haven't thought about it enough, but I want to state that this
ADDS a complete different chapter to Morality. I write ADD, because I don't see it as a different
from universal morality, but as a prolongation.
I think and notice that the MoQ view on Morality, in which every pattern has value, is exactly what is
missing in our western society. We have lost the sight of the intrinsic value/morals of all existing patterns
and judge patterns (and behaviour) on their purpose and on how well patterns accomplish a purpose. I
think everyone of you who understands the MoQ, has experience with this, but I will give an example.
I was talking to my girlfriend about value. Somehow we struck upon the topic of sperm
(don't ask me how) and I asked her if spermcells have value. She responded quickly in
saying that only the one that finaly hits it off with the eggcell has value. Answering that this
cell wouldn't exist and certainly wouldn't be able to do his thing if not for the others, she saw
what I meant by 'Every pattern has value'.
This in my opinion reflects the supremacy of mainly utilitarism in our society.
2) The division of morality of patterns and events
>From Rogers axioms, 1, 2 en 3, I make
1. Reality is Composed of Quality Events that involve Value Interactions and create Static Patterns of
Value (I don't see reason to mention the division between subject-object patterns)
2. Static Patterns of Value Require Continuous Interaction To Continue to Exist and Not All Dynamic
Interactions Result in Pattern Emergence or Continuance
a) Morality of static patterns of value
(What you will notice is that I don't see DQ simply as change and as opposed to the static. A very static
pattern can be very dynamic too.)
In what way the degree of morality of a pattern is determined?
- The morality of a static pattern is determined by the potential the pattern has in letting DQ be realized
to the maximal and BEST extent. More complex patterns have more potential.
What is the moral thing to do for a pattern?
- It is moral for a pattern to let the DQ of the pattern in itself be realized to the maximal
and BEST extent. In other words this means that it is good for the pattern to develop
itself to the maximal and full extend of the thing it is initialy aimed at (intrinsic value).
Example: For a acorn it is moral to become an full-grown oak.
- It is moral for a pattern to try to repeat itself longer in time, so to be as static as possible.
(This is a very important statement. Horse hit on this one in his posts several times too. If you see this
you don't as easily say that a pattern is immoral or behaving immoraly (take for example a virus that
kills the professor).
Roger writes:
> 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. ...
I would like to add that from the universal morality (the bottom-up view, see above) these levels are the
big steps among other small steps in the continuum of the 'evolution' of patterns into more complex
patterns that are more able in letting DQ be realized to the maximal and BEST extent.
Take for instance the difference between a fly and an elefant as a difference in morality within the
Biology-level (sublevels insects, mammals).
Considering only the human-morality perspective (take in mind Keith's historical summary and think of
only the human line) the four levels are distinct levels.
b) the morality of an event = morality of the forming of static patterns (events)
Roger writes:
> 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
I once wrote:
>What results from the former (a) is that the degree of morality of the forming of a static pattern
>is determined by the potential of the event to form a static pattern that can contribute to letting DQ
>be realized to the maximal and BEST extent.
And
>The degree of morality of an event is the possibility that DQ, as a consequence of this event, is
>optimized over time
But I have to be honest that I am not so sure about that anymore. The problem with this is that in fact we
enter the chapter of human-morality, because it seems to me that only then something that is not
existing yet (the pattern to be formed) can be judged moraly out of consciousness.
Thanks
DtchGtngs
Walter
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 - 16:02:42 BST