Dave L. and David B and MOQ foci
DLT wrote:
> I think(?) the topic question is:
> Where does Metaphysics of Quality look for (and find) an explanation,
> or the reason, for everything?
Dave
You are right in adding a question mark. This topic is a bit broad
and should perhaps have been limited to the nature/nurture thing,
but if we are able to formulate the MOQ equivalent to that question
(and its answer) we have a "whole string of crimes" solved.
> I suggest that now roughly 2000 years and thousands of philosophers
> later we've come back to the MoQ under which our experience continues
> to be "backing [us] into the future." Try it. I think you'll find it
> an interesting physical way to understand the MoQ and possibly get
> some insight into this month's topic.
Yes, Pirsig says that the Quality idea is the oldest there is. Still,
that doesn't turn us into Homerians (?). The old idea has to be
given a third millennium wrapping.
> Now that you've stopped laughing, imagine doing this in some place you
> are unfamiliar with, and for some reason you had no choice in being
> there, and walking backward is your only option. Sounds kind of like
> being born, doesn't it.
The backward walk on unfamiliar ground is a good metaphor for the
experience at the outer limits of the (now outmost) static level -
Intellect - but within the "city walls" of the intellect - not to speak of
the lower levels - it doesn't matter much what way you face; you
know it like the proverbial "back-hand".
> And all these events are happening simultaneously and dynamically
> happening on four different levels or planes of existence.
> What caused these events? Or?
> Why are these events valued? Or?
> Of what value are these events?
Yes, what is the MOQ alternative to the nature/nurture riddle. I tried
to show that even if the sociologists and the naturalists go to great
lengths to fake agreement there is no solution to it. For a moment
they may even think they have it sorted out, but there is no
possible way the two can interact. Right now the "nature" party has
the upper hand. The last behavior gene to be found were one for
homosexuality, but ten years from now and the "social" party will
be ruling.
> "The only difference between causation and the value is that the word
> "cause" implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning of
> "value" is one of preference." RMP Lila Clue?
The "cause" versus "value" is of course the master-key, but the
missing two levels between SOM's objective (nature) and its
subjective (nurture) is important. Of course it's no use to confront a
SOMist with information about any Biological and a Social reality,
s/he will not understand a thing, to them life is just a complicated
form of matter and society an arbitrary assembly of individuals.
The ill of SOM is reflected in this quandary, or, rather, it has
created it! The fact that we humans are biological and social beings
is obvious, it's just that it has no solution within the subject/object
metaphysics. Our job is to work out the MOQ alternative.
> The MoQ abandons "absolute certainty" in favour of moral choices based
> on experienced patterns of values. So when faced with one of those
> sticky questions like:
> What was the original cause? Or was there one?
> I think the MoQ answers; "I don't know" , But........
> look to at all the patterns of value you can concerning this issue.
> Evaluate them, as best you can, and based on your experience make your
> best, your most moral choice and hope that it is a GOOD one, but even
> if it is don't expect to know it!
Well put Dave, but I think this world's Strawsons ;-) won't find it
fully satisfactory!
*********************************
For DAVID B. who wrote:
> But seriously, I think the nature vs. nurture riddle is
> dissovled in the MOQ. The short answer is "both". Nature becomes
> organic and inorganic level value and Nuture becomes social and
> intellectual level value.
Thanks David for a relevant message. II will just concentrate on the
above passage (after recovering from your Mead opening :-)). As
said, my topic and introductory message seem to have been
confusing. With good reason. Let's limit it to the MOQ answer to
SOM's nature-nurture riddle. Your short answer is "both" and the
reason is that "nature" covers the inorganic and biological levels
while "nurture" covers social and intellectual. This is Pirsig's way of
integrating SOM into the MOQ, and it is of course correct, but
exactly how does it solve the n/n riddle?
As everyone (of the MF) know, the MOQ rejects the subject/object
division in favour of a Dynamic quality/Static quality one. The
dynamic half has nothing to do with SOM's subject half, it's
completely featureless, usually there is no dynamic influence. The
"behaviour" of all existence, from atoms to human beings, is the
sum total of one or more static level.
This is as far as I am relatively sure, a more detailed description we
will arrive at before this month is over - I hope. Perhaps you
already have the answer in the passages below.
> [David Buchanan] No. There is nothing so certain as a cause,
> even at the lowest level of static quality. And the higher levels have
> even more freedom of "chocie" than particles and waves. For humans,
> who are a collection of values from all four static levels, there is
> bound to be a chorus of voices in every choice. Our task is to balance
> and integrate those different values according the the moral code. But
> its not a code for behaviour, oughts, or thou shalts. It begs us to
> sort out the various values at play in any given conflict. The
> explanatory power of the MOQ is in the five moral codes, but making it
> useful requires a genuine feel for the entire ontological scheme. I
> mean, we can only use the codes if we actually know one level of value
> from another and be able to recognize the difference when we bump into
> them in the real world.
but - for instance - who is the entity that chooses between the various voices?
Wow, that one we just discussed, didn't we? Is it in our FAQ?
> It seems the nature vs nurture question is a great example,
> seemly unsolvable in normal science, the MOQ simply says that each
> aspect is the expression of different levels of values, and that
> ultimately it was all aquired by experience, even the stuff you're
> born with. The whole problem dissolves. We look to the values
> involved, rather than causes. Then its just a matter of applying the
> levels and
Hear, hear!
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:37 BST