Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Fri, 24 Jul 1998 15:16:35 +0100
Hi Jonathan and LS
> HORSE;
> >The big problem, as I see it, .... is that you are trying to
> >anticipate the probable outcome of the effect of DQ in advance and
> >as such limiting DQ. This is surely a case of intellect attempting to
> >subjugate DQ for its own purpose, which is apparently immoral
> >according to what Pirsig has written.
>JONATHAN
> As soon as a pattern is recognised (SQ), that pattern extrapolates to
> predict outcome. This is unavoidable.
> That's not to impose a limit on DQ. What Horse is saying is that weather
> forecasts limit what weather can subsequently occur!! If the prediction
> is wrong, the SQ patterns are wrong.
> No Horse, if we can't act in anticipation of outcome, there's no point
> in doing anything at all.
Passive prediction of future possible weather patterns based on
prior patterns is not a (strictly) moral (in the traditional sense)
activity. There is no attempt to manipulate or alter the patterns in
order to achieve an end. An observation or extrapolation of possible
outcomes in this instance is, I would have thought, of no moral
consequence. (It's also very limited due to the intrusion of complex
systems theory). It may become a low moral value issue as
observation in some instances may alter the weather patterns and
cause unpredictable results which are not forseeable or intended.
The use to which you put the knowledge of a possible outcome
could make a difference in moral terms.
The point I was making was that, according to Pirsig, DQ is of the
highest value - higher than IntPoV - and as such where Intellect
attempts to deliberately suppress DQ, __for its own purposes__ ,
then this is apparently immoral. (In some ways I agree - as with the
issue of censorship and intellectual rights - see my posts to Platt).
This raises some interesting issues within the value as morality
debate. If DQ is of higher value than SQ, then is a Quality Event
(DQ) at the level of Social patterns of higher value (morality) than
SQ at the Intellectual level. According to some in the Squad there
is no means of comparison as each of the (at least) 4 levels are
discrete and as such there can be no comparison. Social Value is
of a completely different type to Intellectual Value which is different
to DQ. Personally I don't think that Pirsig is at all clear on this in
Lila.
I agree that upon recognition of SQ patterns may extrapolate to
predict outcome, but this is different to acting upon those
predictions (DQ), so it does become avoidable - I think. As I said in
my last post on this:
>
> >I'm not saying that P. is
> >necessarily correct, just pointing out the already stated.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HORSE
> >What I do think is definitely wrong with the above is that you are
> >not taking into account the effect of a possibly vast number of
> >additional contributory factors that may undo any good that you are
> >trying to pre-empt. This has definite tones of Utilitarianism. The
> >short term effect may seem to what is required but the long term
> >effects are unpredictable and could be worse than the condition
> >you try to prevent. This is the basis of chaotic systems.
>
JONATHAN
> When I wrote about finding the path for maximum realization of
> potential, I gave some simple examples. Because of your objection, I
> will give a much more complicated one. Given the amino-acid sequence of
> a protein, it is theoretically possible to calculate likely folding
> patterns to find the conformation of minimum energy (greatest
> stability). In practice, this turns out to be a computational problem of
> immense magnitude. There are so many permutations of angles and
> distances that often the only way to know if a given structure can be
> improved on, is to actually find a better one. In the end, it often
> turns out that there are a number of different solutions with very
> similar energies. Interestingly, a very useful computational tool for
> this type of problem is called the "genetic algorithm" which treats the
> parameters of the problem like gene sequences, subjecting the values to
> "mutations" and "transpositions" to help generate new possibilities
I'v played about with GA's in the past.
>
> To get back to morality, the most "moral" solution to a problem is
> sometimes just as elusive and ambiguous as a protein folding problem.
> Furthermore, the chosen approach sometimes turns out to be wrong in the
> long term (as you so rightly state). But that doesn't mean it is moral
> to just stand back and let things take their course. In 1939, Gandhi,
> true to his absolute pacifist stance, condemned the declaration of war
> against Hitler's Germany. I don't question Gandhi's moral integrity, but
> I disagree with his moral choice on this issue. IMO opinion violent
> intervention against Hitler was justified to prevent much greater evil
> in the long term.
>
I think the whole moral debate leading up to events such as wars
are often highly suspect and given to simplistic debate. It generally
involves political (social) judgements, biological judgements,
Intellectual judgements and examination of possible Quality Events
(extrapolation) for a variety of reasons. It is quite easy to show that
Hitlers rise to power was based upon prior social value judgements
of very low quality - Treaty of Versailles and other suspect reasons.
Much the same could be said about Vietnam, the Gulf, Yugoslavia
etc.
I agree that by the time it becomes a do or die issue then the
moral choice is difficult. This is another reason for examining the
whole value = morality issue from the discrete AND continuous
perspectives to see which one has greater value. There is also the
intrinsic versus instrumental value distinction. Are they the same
within MoQ, are they different or does the MoQ even recognise a
difference.
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST