clark (clark@netsites.net)
Mon, 23 Mar 1998 04:37:31 +0100
----------
> From: Hettinger <hettingr@iglou.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqd@mail.hkg.com>
> Subject: LS Re: : On Valuing Intellectual Ideas
> Date: Saturday, March 21, 1998 11:23 PM
>
> Hi, Kevin. You got me thinking with this one.
>
> Kevin Sanchez wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, perhaps the value of any particular idea can be
weight in how
> > many other levels it must use to prove its point. For instance, pure
evil
> > force (threatening to turn human biological life into inorganic matter
as a
> > social custom) was what was necessary for Hitler's idea. However,
Gandhi
> > threatened no biological death and only made social demonstrations. The
> > less invasion of other levels, the more worthy and intellectual idea.
> > What do you think?
> >
>
>
> I've been gradually coming to a semi-conclusion that an event or
interaction that acts
> on many levels at the same time, in some sort of linked action, is
perceived as a
> Quality event. IE. some sort of balanced state in which the new patterns
are
> perceived as beauty, or as a paradigm shift. I might be able to buttress
this with
> the notion that lately the Squad seems to be coming to a sense that the
more moral or
> more evolved entity has the capability of increased awareness, which I
interpret as
> being able to interact and perceive with a high intellectual awareness
without losing
> touch with supporting levels and patterns as well.
>
> Now, you seem to perceive the opposite. And after spending a few days
on this, I
> wonder whether it's not so much having an effect on lower levels that
makes the
> difference, as whether the lower levels' values are also a part of this
or not.
>
> Hitler had an effect on lower levels. His intellectual concept became a
biological
> force ("threatening to turn human biological life into inorganic matter
as a social
> custom"--good description).
>
> I think Gandhi had an effect on lower levels, and his movement was an
intellectual
> concept put into social action that had the effect of changing biological
reality
> without destruction.
>
> And the major differences between the two are:
> 1) One destroyed many individual human lives and one didn't. We could
probably have a
> field day with this, if we were willing to entertain the notion that the
wholescale
> preservation of individual human life may not be an automatic,
unchallengeable
> indication of betterness.
>
> 2) The level of action was different. Gandhi's movement maintained a
high
> intellectual self-concept, applied its force entirely within the
social/intellectual
> realm, refused to recognize or interact within the social/biological
struggle, and
> therefore kept itself within a higher, more moral plane. Hitler's
movement glorified
> a biological ideal (the purity of the Aryan race), and operated within
the
> biological/inorganic level (pure physical survival).
>
> If this observation is correct, each "movement", even though it contained
an
> intellectual component, focused itself at a different level, (or maybe
llinked the
> intellectual pattern to a different level) and then went into action at
the level
> below. Is this something that seems to carry through as any kind of
general rule?
>
> Maggie
>
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
Maggie and Kevin and LS,
Your discussion pinpoints some of the objections that I had with the MOQ
from the start. I could see areas where the biological level should
ethically take precedence over higher levels.
To be as disjointed as I can. I also think that the relation of Quantum
action to the question of free will has been misunderstood. Heisenberg was
speaking as a physicist and speaking only in terms of his new
understanding, that is, at the subatomic level.
In my opinion it is wrong to say that quantum theory has negated
determinism. Our experience tells us that the universe, from the level of
atom up is predictable. In my mind, physical action at the subatomic level
is also predictable even though we can't explain it at the moment. We can't
have a physically predictable universe sitting on top of a totally random
system.
There may have been other possibilities, but once the physics of the
universe had been determined, at the big bang or shortly thereafter, the
universe was a deterministic system.
Pure determinism is repugnant to most of us because we don't like to feel
like pawns in a soulless system, however, there is a way out of this
problem.
As long as the only tool we had to predict the future was the calculus
then we could, in theory, sit down with a pencil and paper and produce that
future.
Now the new idea of deterministic disorder (chaos) destroys that idea.
The course of the development of the universe is constantly changing
because of local conditions. A snowflake is the history of all of the
conditions by which it was formed and every snowflake is different.
Snowflake history is written as a progression of its edges. History is
written at the leading edge of (Dynamic Quality) time on the totality of
the universe just like the snowflakes. According to Chaos Theory the only
way we can predict the future is to know the exact history of each
individual event, whether it be the totality of the events that produced an
individual or society or the intellect or the universe. This is clearly
impossible. Therefore the universe is not deterministic in any practical
sense even though it originated in a deterministic way. We are living in a
deterministically disordered universe.
The reason I had trouble with some of Pirsig"s ideas was that I tend to
go along with James Lovelock"s idea of Gaia. He proposes that the Earth,
and more particularly its Biosphere, is the living entity and that life in
it's many forms are the organs that support Gaia as the primary organism.
If we adopt this idea it makes Pirsig"s idea of the four levels and their
relative primacy subject to question in many cases. We might even adopt the
idea that the biological level is the highest level.
With these ideas in mind, I look upon Dynamic Quality as having existed
since the beginning and as being the force for greater information content
in the universe. This force I look upon as a continually increasing level
of morality which is caused by the process of evolution and the selection
that results. That which is "better" locks in and becomes a base for
further information. The result of these ideas is that the questions of
local morality with which we judge the human race should be viewed in the
context of "Gaia". The universe is a moral order.
The Earth is already carrying more people than we can supply with a
barely adequate diet of 2000 calories per day. We are already overcrowded.
Now, should we selectively kill off people down to about 2 billion, which
is thought to be the sustainable capacity of the Earth. No, I don't think
so. A more humane approach would be to educate people to reproduce at a
replacement level and then reduce that until the 2 billion level is
reached. Again, a violation of the social and intellectual levels. We can
continue what we are doing and ignore the whole thing and let Gaia take
care of the problem. This will eventually happen. Which is more moral? Do
we apply human intellect or do we allow Gaia intellect to operate? What
would be the answer of Plato and Aristotle who had none of these problems
in their time? What makes them apples do like that? Ken Clark
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:57 CEST