ROGER RESPONDS TO THE MORALITY FEEDBACK
Squad,
Thank you very much for the insights. The volume of suggestions was huge, and
universally excellent. Sorry, but there is too much to cut and pace......
To JONATHAN:
Jonathan started by stating that Dialectics was a better tool than my 2nd
chart. Well that stumps me. I don't know enough about that to argue. I too
played with your ideas of doing number values and multi dimensions.... but
dismissed them as too confusing. As for your match analogy, I would state that
destruction of wood, oxygen,etc into a less complex state of gas and heat is
immoral unless it is being done to advance the interests of the man in the
cave....to light his way. In which case the most moral course is to destroy as
efficiently as possible. Per the MOQ, I would say energy conservation is
moral. .... meaning we should use it efficiently.
The chart is simply a tool to plot out all known patterns and to view
pattern destruction and advancement and help clarify outcomes for better
judgement. In the case you provide, I believe the benefits of lighting the
match clearly need to be plotted . Hmmmm.....
Jonathan, as for Dialectics, are you saying that dialectics can be used within
the MOQ to make decisions and evaluate morality? Or that it is superior to
the MOQ in analyzing morality? Or that it is better than my feeble chart?
Whichever, I will go read up on Dialectics.....
To WALTER (and Ken):
I agree with everything you wrote, though some is tough to synthesize. I
think the part about "every pattern has value" may fit nicely with Horse's
"rights".
As for universal morality, I was trying not to screw with the basic tenets of
MOQ when I expanded Intellectual quality to be holistic. How does Universal
morality differ from my expanded perspective? My thought is that if you can
answer that you have begun to make universal morality into an intellectual
pattern. To the extent we are successful over time getting closer and closer
to building a mental universal pattern, I would say we are moving toward DQ. I
may be totally wrong though!
To BODVAR:
You prefer the old chart to the new....... See Horse's comments below. Use
whichever tools work best. See Glove's chart on his webpage too.
To GLOVE:
You are over my head.I have to start from the basics on your creation and
discreation concepts. I don't understand why they help clarify morality.
Please help me along here.
Next , I need to understand what you mean that social patterns are always
creative and
intellectual patterns are always destructive. How is the theory of relativity
destructive? Why does the blank 4th part of decision making have to be
destuctive?
To HORSE:
HORSE:<<<<<<<<<
1. Reality is Continuously Created by Quality Events
2. Quality Events Create Static Patterns of Value (SPoV's)
3. SPoV Interactions are the basis of Quality Events
What I'm trying to capture here is the recursive/bootstrap nature in the
above. I've
added some things and changed a few others, which we can discuss further as
we comtinue,>>>>>>>>
I too was keeping this part of the Axioms in as a continuation of the DQ
thread. I kind of agree with the recursive/bootstrap analogy, but I am timid
at following you all the way on point # 3. In Magnus's writings on quality
events in the forum, he carefully spells out that it is incorrect to state
that QE's change subjects/objects. They CREATE subjects and objects. Viewed
this way, all reality is experiencing creation.
Any input from others on this?
This is a minor point in the scheme of things.
HORSE:<<<<
5. Not All Dynamic Interactions Result in Pattern Continuance.
>>>>>>
I accept this rewrite. From here on, we agree basically on points 6 thru 11. I
agree with your commentary throughout.
HORSE (regarding my interaction morality chart ):<<<<<<<
The above seems to introduce possible problems. In some ways it reminds me of
a version of the Subject-Object view of moral value. In order to evaluate the
holistic
view of morality it appears that an external view is necessary - the
objective
observer. How does one assess something from the Universal Intellectual Level,
does this include a dynamic/static balance. This is one reason I have made the
suggestion that any system of moral values should be based upon Rights. When
you get to the point of abstraction within a moral system (Utilitarianism,
Deontology, Virtue etc.) the system itself becomes more likely to be hijacked.
At
least when a systematic approach to Morality is proposed and that system is
recorded in some form the argument then moves to specifics and away from
abstraction. I agree that some form of holistic approach is necessary but
wouldn't that be
better approached from a deductive system rather than an inductive system as
the above seems to suggest. Apologies if I'm misinterpreting the above.
I think that the new chart is a definite improvement on the previous one but
it still
leaves open the problem of prediction and multiple patterns. Some actions are
obviously and immediately harmful to either/both parties involved - if it is
the case
that there are only two. What happens in the case where multiple patterns at
different levels are involved. How is the outcome assessed. Again, apologies
if I
am misinterpreting your reasoning.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think we have taken my methodology as far as we can, let's shift now to your
deductive rights based sytem and see where it takes us.
Roger
ROGER:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"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."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I had meant to say more but this is getting extremely long and I've hardly
looked
at Walters post yet and I'm feeling guilty about not having posted on the
Brain,
Mind and Intellect PROGRAM topic yet. If you'd prefer to continue privately
with
Walter and whoever else wants to join then let me know. Mind you, there hasn't
been a lot of traffic on the list for a few days so.......
Horse
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