Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:00:25 +0100
Hi Magnus, Squad,
MAGNUS wrote:-
...
>I'm not gonna sit here arguing that the WWII holocaust was a moral
>event. ...
>Not even nazists nowadays think so, they're trying to deny it.
>
>I do think however, that it is the same DQ that is responsible for both
>such horrible events and good events.
I agree with you. No pain, no gain!
> And remember that I don't think of DQ as
>you do, "things that happen". "Things that happen" are Quality
>Events. DQ is what makes each and every QE a little bit
>unpredictable so that anything might happen.
If you'll cut me some slack here, my restated definition of DQ is "what
makes things happen".
>DQ has no plan
>to make things better, it's up to SQ to decide whether the change
>was for the better or worse.
I said something similar myself a while back (the diving into cold water
example).
>It would be much worse to stop DQ.
By my definition of DQ, that is not possible.
>
>I said, "every event that is made possible by reality, is a moral
>event.".
>Well, I guess it ought to be, "every event that is made possible by
>reality, is a moral event, at least until it has happened".
Doesn't that mean that everything is moral - unless you believe that
impossible events can also happen (doesn't make sense to me, but you
said
it!)
>If the resulting SQ was bad, i.e. a mutation was less viable than its
>precessor, then it will not prevail. Otherwise, it will latch.
So immorality can be a temporary state, right? Maybe this isn't so
different
to what I wrote:-
>> It is immoral to attempt to reverse the natural flow, but moral to
>> divert or attenuate the flow to facilitate it's movement down the
>> best channel
>> >>> Which is the SODV diagram?
>Both, since a description is an intellectual pattern.
Glad we agree on that!
Regards,
Jonathan
-- 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 - 16:43:29 CEST