Hi Roger and Focs
The month is over soon and so is its twofold topic: The MOQ as a
moral guide and how to decide what belongs to what level.
My answer is that as human beings and of all levels our moral is of
course the top value level - Intellect: The superiority of the individual
over society ....the usual subject-object morality. What the MOQ
adds is the glimpse of a perspective beyond Intellect. If it is difficult
to have a moral based on something you don't regard as truth itself
my answer is that that is Intellect or SOM protesting being de-
masked and I could not care less.
About the levels I use the dimension analogy: everything has a
position inside the moral dimensions of the MOQ just like
everything has its place respective to the space dimensions.
Everything shifts, one moment a long arrow in one value direction
the next a "porcupine" of arrows in all directions. I don't know why
some want it written in detail. The more general the better.
Roger made a guest appearance the 22th. Why so late in the
month with such a weighty post? The emotivism charge against the
MOQ is fabricated by the furious Intellect(SOM) that refuses to be
taken down to a sub-system of another metaphysics and by
honouring it we stoop to its level.
Roger's points:
> A. Logically explaining why the Dynamic is more moral than the static. We
> cannot leave this hanging. I have given one suggestion to the issue, and
> there are probably others. (For example, we could grade morality, ala Ken
> Wilbur, based upon the degree of pattern as a whole and as a part. The
> problem here is that this is not just adding to the MOQ, it is CHANGING it.
> However, it solves LOTS of the above problems! Don't worry, I am just
> brainstorming)
Dynamic Value is the chief postulate and good by definition. Static
Value must necessarily be "evil" from this high position yet good
the moment it tears loose from the previous static level. The Wilber
connection needs a little more explanation to become clear to me.
> B. Clarifying the levels and the level-emergence process.
See the dimension bit.
> C. Building a measurement system to compare the relative 'dynamicness' of
> same-level patterns.
Suggest this as next month's topic!
> D. Building something in the MOQ's moral model to recognize the amount of
> pattern. (again reading Wilbur can be beneficial)
Amount of pattern? Sounds like my dimensional arrows.
> E. Clarifying that the MOQ is more of a morality map than an itinerary. The
> MOQ is not an algorithm for moral behavior or a process to rationalize or
> condemn past behavior. It a metaphysical map that allows you to step back
> and analyze reality/morality with a superior set of coordinates. Nothing is
> more damaging to the MOQ than improper expectations. The message of the MOQ
> is, in the end, to follow undefined quality. Don't just follow the current
> roads, use your map to build a new path -- to change the very terrain you
> are trying to chart.
Exactly. You have really done some thinking while lurking Roger.
> But then again, I could be wrong.....
I love to see your famous last word again.
Bo
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST