MARCO ANSWERS TO ROG & GLOVE, TRIES TO EXPLAIN WHY DYNAMIC IS MORE MORAL
THAN STATIC AND FINALLY SENDS HIMSELF OFF FOR A TWO WEEKS VACATION
Roger, Glove y todos
My luggage is ready in the other room, calling for my name. There's just the
time for this answer to Roger and Glove, after their review of my statement:
Marco:
>> Existence is a continual choice. If to choose is to pursue what's more
>> valuable, then existence is necessarily a movement toward excellence (the
>> high Value).
>>
Dan:
>
> I myself see no choices. Either one follows Dynamic Quality or does not
> and that is without choice for there is no choice to be made. Not
> really. There is only one way to accomplish any task -- the RighT way --
> and that too is without choice.
Marco:
I think I understand your point Dan , but.... when you say you don't see any
choice, it seems you deny freedom, and freedom is one of the points of the
MOQ.
If you deny the importance of a free choice, you have two ways to explain
evolution:
1) resurrect a mechanical causation which predetermines all events (CAUSA
PRIMA)
2) put a teleological goal of evolution (CAUSA ULTIMA)
In both cases where is freedom? IMO the MOQ says that evolution toward
Quality is an inherent characteristic of universe (so, no causation), but it
does not mean we tend to an ineluctable destiny: there are always many
possibilities (so, no teleology), and many right ways. So it's very
probable that statistically you can predict a lot of collective behaviors
(for example how many Italians choose Greece or Spain for their vacations),
but you can't predict where I'm going to. I choose the destination I feel as
the best one, for me, here and now. And however also the collective behavior
is a collective choice: your eventual prediction is a consequence of past
choices, not a real prediction.
Dan:
> We may tell ourselves we have a choice and we may even see
> ourselves making choices; I do. Examine closely
> though how these choices arise, flourish and fade away and one begins to
> see choices as temporal detours that only take us further away from
> where it is we really want to go.
Of course my choices arise from my environment, my past and my expectations,
in one word my patterns, but I AM THESE PATTERNS, so it's this "q-me" who is
choosing. It's very probable that the 99% of my choices will not influence
the universe a lot, nevertheless the "q-me" chooses. Then the 99% of my
choices will fade away and leave no traces, but how can you deny an even
small possibility to influence the course of evolution?
Rog:
> So, are you defining "value" as "that which we choose?"
Marco:
Not exactly. Value is value and I don't define it. I just say that value
drives our choices. In diverse ways. On one side, there's the potential
value I'm pursuing, on another side there is my actual "q-me" which in some
way is also driving (sometimes restraining) the choice, filtering reality
through perceptions, feelings and thoughts.
Rog:
> What if we choose not to choose?
Marco:
It's however a choice, so this question has no sense, I guess. If we don't
choose anything, I argue we are choosing the status quo, aka static quality.
However, after the choice, wanting or not wanting the "q-me" changes, as
every experience becomes part of my patterns.
Rog:
>What if we choose that which is less dynamic?
Marco:
Less dynamic, you asked. The problem is: how do I recognize which is more
dynamic? It depends on the significance we want to give to "Dynamic". When
we say "WHICH IS more dynamic" we are not talking about the DQ itself, as
we can't point to DQ as a "which" "being". We just can point to a mix of
SQ and DQ. IMO the "more dynamic" is the one who has more possibilities to
respond to the environment, escaping away from the tendential entropy of the
system. J.B. Marder talks about thermodynamics. Effectively his essay,
"The
end of causality", has a point. (see below).
There's another underlying question here: "What if we choose that which is
less moral?" The mistake is always there waiting for us. You see, I can die
for someone else, or commit suicide 'cause I don't want to suffer anymore,
but in all cases my choice is for something that is, in my own opinion and
in that exact moment, better.
It does not mean that it's moral. A lot of young nazis and fascists died
for wrong ideals. It's arguable that they did not know exactly
how much those ideals were wrong, that of course they knew they were causing
tragedies and pains, but they were convinced it was right and/or necessary.
If
you read the letters of those soldiers, you will find often a blind sureness
about a better future. They saw war as a dynamic opportunity for the
improvement of their "volk". This is an example of immoral choice.
Rog:
>What are the implications of equating morality with choice?
Marco:
I hope it's clear that I did not intend to equate morality with choice. If
you equate morality with choice, the consequence is that morality is
individual, that is not what the MOQ claims. I choose, then future will be
the judge. If I'm wrong, sooner or later the
branch of evolution I'm creating will be dead end.
Rog:
> Why is one more moral than the other? What is this morality of which we
> speak?
This is the same question of Castillano. I suggested that it's moral adding
value to universe, while it's immoral to take value despite of someone else.
I try to explain better my point. We can seek a better situation creating
(static) value and by consequence increasing the total value of universe,
using DQ as a sort of raw material. Or we can simply accept ready made
values,
but in this latter case we don't create anything, so we increase the
system's entropy.
That's why dynamic is more moral than static. I agree with Jonathan:
> systems evolve towards increasing (degrees of) freedom.
if not, they die.
the only possible evolution directions are:
1) to entropy
or
2) to freedom
This is the starting point. You have to choose (!) one direction and claim
it's the right one. Then call it morality. I think we all choose the #2
(that is equate the evolution toward DQ and the morality) and we all agree
that entropy is the evil, the end of everything, the death of universe.
Note: ==> [For what I wrote above in answer to Glove, IMO the moral
direction is not a predetermined road. It's rather an inherent
characteristic of universe, and the possible solutions are many (or, what
kind of freedom is it?). ]
The conclusion is that if we want to be dynamic we must beware of all
manifestations of intellectual / cultural / biological / inorganic entropy.
So biodiversity is moral, multiculturality is moral, freethinking is moral.
See you next month
Marco.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST