Hi, MoQers
firstly :
<?>
Natalie Shaw wrote:
> Hi,
> Although a religious perspective is not dominate here, I find that the close
> of the Bible brings life as the ultimate human reward.
>
> Revelation 21:3-4
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark --
</?>
The quote from the Revised English Bible is :
<REB>
I heard a loud voice proclaiming from the throne:"Now God has his dwelling with
mankind! He will dwell among them and they shall be his people, and God himself
will be with them He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There shall be an end
to death, and to mourning and crying and pain, for the old order has passed
away!"
</REB>
To Natalie/Mark:
Please tell me if I got the wrong quote, because, needlessly messianical claims
as to MoQ aside, to my mind this makes only a vaguely asymptotic amount of sense
with respect to the discussion in hand! :-)
===============
With respect to Rog's discussion of 5 Aug 2000 - he quoted me
<quote>
"I would say that it's the relationship that DQ strikes with SQ
that is maximum morality." {Hamish)
</quote>
and a lot of others, of which many seemed to be on the same lines of thought
that my own were.
To be blunt, I'm not actually as convinced about the above quote as I was at the
time. It seemed to me to be a way of resolving the "anyone can see that quality
is" versus "but it's just what anyone wants" argument [which Rick correctly
pulled me up on in July's debate], with the technically valid argument that what
some people want is very hard to define as 'quality'.
My quote seems to say that DQ is "what anybody wants" but must be moderated
against SQ - namely intellectual, social, etc. 'convention'.
This month's program is
<program>
Explain why the Dynamic is more moral than the static. We cannot
leave this hanging. 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 problems!
</program>
I can conceive of at least three metaphyical posiiblilities :
{1}
So, are we equating DQ to very choice made by every person? I think the answer
is 'no' because we would, to be consistent, have to state that every choice of
every 'cell' in our 'bodies', and every choice of every 'electron' [intellectual
terms for an observed pattern in biological and inorganic reality] must be DQ.
Although this is possibly logically tenable, I'm not sure that I want the
philosophical consequences of such a PoV.
{2}
Now if one were to state that the choices which we accord to people, cells and
electrons are the unfolding of DQ onto SQ - this would be a radical statement,
and one maybe not too dissimilar from DQ == 'divine providence'. Maybe we don't
want to go there, but a comparison is worth a look? [This is just a suggestion
- I haven't done the research.]
{3}
Or is it that choice is what is left when DQ illuminates the outlines of one
own's SQ onto the walls of the cave of our consciousness. In which case any
crappy outcome to 'choice' could be blamed on the SQ - needing
psychotherapy/imprisonment in the case of humans, medication in the case of
cells, and we're so far boyond discussing corrective treatment of electrons that
I'm not sure here - probably just electrical insulation, or whatever
vitamins/enzymes cells need to control chemical behaviour.
So what about uncertainty? If we accept {3}, then uncertainty is just the
condition that SQ can never circumscribe DQ and that 'excellence' can at times
just seem arbitrary to 'virtue', if not actually undermine it. However this
allows also the explanation of atrocity on the human level in that at some level
DQ has latched on to/motivated a particularly nasty bit of SQ that hasn't been
restrained/moderated properly. I think this is what I meant about the relation
between DQ and SQ being maximal morality. So morality here is proper vigilance
by SQ to ensure that DQ can be allowed but no for degeneracy to set in? I think
we're back with a familiar problem.
For DQ to be absolutlely more moral that SQ, we are left with the premise that
'errors and omissions' are the problem of SQ : fair enough, DQ is indescribable,
SQ is that which can be described. Therefore in social terms we need to set up
enough SQ in the form of education, therapy and penal correction to keep things
OK Not a PoV I have a great problem with. [Please excuse loose and low number
of terms - I suspect a lot of other socially necessary things can be fitted in
without inconsistency]. The only caveat is that such institutions must allow
'some' degree of freedom. The exact degree is one is a matter of much
controversy. And in this I think that my idea that maximal morality is the
proper relationship of DQ and SQ is helpful.
This is not to say that DQ is less than moral - it is just a handle that SQ
terms can get on DQ without self-destructing.
We have no choice but to communicate ideas about DQ but in terms of SQ, and to
try to infer DQ to another person is essentially an art of ellipsis : by koans
or by other means. This is necessarily [?] a toruous path. It is therefore not
a suprise that 'what is good' is so widely disputed. Without DQ we are just
left with a load of other peoples decisions and will never see the contexts in
which they were made, or whether those people saw themselves as evolutionary or
carrying down the One-Law-Of-The-True-Prophet-Variant [whether this be Buddha,
Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Marx or Dworkin]. The former may be prone to cock-ups
but I guess that they are more attuned to DQ than the latter [and despite the
fact that their chosen illuminati might have been a tad more sussed about
evolutionaly change than they are].
In such terms it is essentially impossible to argue that DQ is more or less
moral than SQ. Either it is 'just what you like' in which case it fails a basic
rhetorical hurdle to say the least, or it is *by definition* The Way and it is
up to us to argue which bits of SQ fit it best in the current climates.
Intrinsically this does not help us as it is [and has been historically] all to
easy to set oneself up as sole arbiter of DQ provide one has enough social
leverage to do so. If we don;t accept the latter we're left to define another
moral perception - which is what DQ claimed to be so we end up with multiplicity
- or we junk the whole thing in favour of SOM, or some such.
So, to turn the program on it's head : given that we can't really displace DQ,
the emphasis is shifted onto how can we 'determine' whether a paticular SQ
proposition is more moral that another? This sounds not too dissimilar from
last month's program. And I think that the answer is 'receptiveness to DQ
within the guidelines of SQ in as far is possible' - in that I don't think we
shouldn't really have to junk the SQ unless it is necessary, but then I do think
that there is an awful lot of SQ out there which is still acted on, is still
harmful, and needs to be junked.
Regards,
Hamish.
.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST