Hello Bo and other focii,
Bo asked for this mail so I hope this makes it in time. I
should be learning exams now but when you have no time you
have to make time. When you have as much trouble understanding
this as I had thinking it out I wish you good luck.
Bo, first about MOQ vs. SOM. I think we mean the same thing
but we say it a different way. When I talked about equality I
meant they are equal seen from the intellectual level; since
the intellectual level can not see a higher level the intel
lect can not see why MOQ is higher, that is left for "belie
vers".
NATURE-NURTURE
The question here is: Is our character (our nature ;-) ) sha
ped by nature, genes etc., or by nurture ?
Talking of character I think you're talking of social vs. bio
logical morals. Nature is obviously the own biological level.
Nurture then is a outside social (intellectual) influence. Not
having an own social level this influence will be a form of
DQ.
The question now turns into: Is our social level created and
adjusted by the SQ of our biological level or by the S- and DQ
of our social and intellectual surroundings ?
The answer of course will be "both".
When a child has no (complete) social level this social level
will be created by the own biological level AND the social
surroundings, for instance the social level of the
upbringer(s) . Social morals have to be thaught but that is
only possible when the biological level supports this
teachings. When you try to give a young cat the same upbrin
ging you will fail. Also it's impossible to teach a child that
it is non-moral to eat. (The puritins and the victorians tried
to teach it was non-moral to have sex and they failed great
ly.)
An other stage in a childs development is adjusting social
morals to intellectual judgements. This goes in the same way.
When a person changes of social surroundings there are 3
things which can happen.
1 The person adjusts his social moral to his new surroundings.
This will happen in most cases.
2 The social surroundings will adjust to the person. This will
only happen when the person is more dynamicly as in the case
of the Zuni brujo.
3 The person is wiped out by the social-immune-system. This
will happen when the person is far more dynamicly or when the
person is far more staticly. This happens to Phaedrus in ZMM.
In the first case the person adjusts his social moral under
influence of social SQ.
In the second case, but also when people for instance apply
intellectual reasoning on (social) ethical questions, people
adjust there social moral to a dynamic influence.
There is one "but". When you change "character" in the origi
nal question into "behaviour" you can say that behaviour
exists of more levels then the social. The story then gets far
more complex but the priciples are the same.
Thus you can say that behaviour is caused :-(( -eeuh- created
:-)) by SQ and DQ BOTH. (Using "caused" you stay looking for a
prime mover. Using "created" it is better to understand it's a
combination of two forces.)
* Note that in the above nature-nurture talk I said nothing
about Quality flowing up and down or about good and bad.
ADRENALINE
SOM tells us the following: Due to some chemical reactions
there is adrenaline. This adrenaline causes a so called
fright-and-fight-reaction (also called fright-and-flight-reac
tion) which a animal needs to survive. Next antropologists and
sociologists tell about social pressure to surpress this reac
tion and of course understanding the reaction can help whit
that.
Now you ask SOM why the body makes the adrenaline. Well, says
SOM, the adrenaline is made because the animal is frightened.
But.. -and here you see the invalidity of SOM causation-
didn't you just say that this fright is caused by adrenaline ?
( Pirsig uses the example of the "survival of the fittest"
which works in the same way.)
Of course there is also the situation as described by Bo that
the adrenaline is put in someones food etc. in which it is not
made by the body itself. (Actualy putting adrenaline in someo
nes food won't work, it has to be injected into the blood; but
it's only a examole.)
First we look at an animal with as highest active level the
biological. (Most anomals using adrenaline have also an social
level but it's imaginairy anyway.) When the animal notices a
danger approaching then this is a danger to its biological
level so it is moral good to undertake action in the form of a
f-f-reaction. I think recognizing the danger can be seen as a
Dynamic impuls. This impuls flows from the biological level to
the anorganic level. Now a chain of two event is created, not
causing each other but at the same moment. There is the event
of the f-f-reaction created by the Dynamic impuls and the bio
logical possibility of using adrenaline and there is the event
of making adrenaline created by the Dynamic f-f-reaction and
the anorganic possibility of certain chemical reactions. (You
can try to extend the chain to a pre-anorganic level, but that
is out of sight now.) In the other situation there is for some
reason a high adrenaline level; maybe a scientist injected it
or is it made due to a genetic error etc. . The Dynamic compo
nent lies in this unknown reason. Now a chain of events is
created in wich quality flows upward. The SQ of the adrenaline
creates together with the more Dynamicly biological level a f-
f-reaction. BUT now this is a moral bad reaction! This f-f-
reaction can create a very dangerous situation for the biolo
gical level and thus for the animal. This f-f-reaction can for
instance consume a amount of energy the animal needed to sur
vive or the animal can hurt itself in its f-f-panic. Of course
this moral bad situation can be compensated by the moral good
of the intellectual insight it creates by the scientist.
Now we add a social level; we take for instance a baboon, not
just a baboon but the domenating male of a group. Since the
baboon has a agressive nature he will mostly exhibit a fright-
and-FIGHT-reaction. But now this f-f-reaction does not only
appear when a biological danger is noticed but also when a
social danger is noticed. When a young outside male tries to
have sex with one of the groups females the domenating baboon
gets realy outragous but it is social moral good. But when a
scientist injects him with adrenaline and he gets outrages
against group members for no reason thats social bad. It's
very well possible the group will no longer excepts him as
their leader. But it's also social bad when he acts contrary
to the groups needs due to a biological originated f-f-reacti
on. Humans would call him a coward or something like it.
Now we add a intellectual level. Now we also can get angry,
furious or fearful by intellectual insights. A baboon who ne
ver before had human contact will sit quietly and peacful whi
le a gun is pointed at him. But when a human sees a gun poin
ted at him he will exhibit a f-f-reaction and be sure his
adrenaline level will raise immediatly. But again a biological
or social originated f-f-reaction can be intellectual bad. For
instance a stranger can be seen by the social level as a
thread and in some cases excite a f-f-reaction but the
intellectual level will judge this reaction as racism. This is
much like happened in the case of the zuni brujo. Of course
any human can also exhibit f-f-reactions and thus raised
adrenaline level due to anorganic (injection) reason or due to
biological or social danger. But the person who surpresses
this and only admits to it on highest (active) level grounds
we call a hero and the person who does not surpresses them we
call a coward or even an animal and it is well possible this
person is thrown out by the social or intellectual immune
system.
All right, so far. I hope everyone made it reading this far ;-) .
Anyone who wants to react will probably not make it in
time fot moq_focus but can write to
j.g.karssenberg@student.utwente.nl .
Greetings,
Jaap
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:37 BST