[Platt] I think we see Dynamic Quality differently. To me it's a moral force, like other forms of energy, that people respond to. You seem to see it as a capacity for change that some static patterns, not necessarily people, possess. Morality (value) doesn't enter into your view. Is that correct?
[Krimel] I think we are closer than you might think. You are correct that I do not see morality as having some independent existence. Nor do I see it as energy in a physicalist sense. Rather I think it is our response to DQ. By this I mean a biological response, programmed into us by evolution. We enter the world equipped to recognize things that are good for us and things that are bad. We are, even into adulthood, guided by these emotional reactions to events around us. As I have said many times, morality and purpose are not properties of nature there are properties of us. As you have on occasion point out residing in us makes them properties of nature but I would say not in a particularly cosmic sense. The real issue is that while you do not see science as suggesting any particular view of morality, I do. For me at least the morality is evolution and evolutionary. Our moral imperative is to rear our young and make the world a better place for those who come after us. I would suggest that few societies have ever existed or at least long endured in defiance of this moral precept. Ours seems to be hell bent on becoming an exception. I'd say the odds in favor are not good. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
