> > [Krimel] > > First I would point out that the static quality of "moral codes" at the > > lowers level forms the foundation of higher levels. The higher level can > > not exist without them and it is the very static quality that gives them > > value. > > [Platt] > The static quality of the lower levels does not give the higher levels > value. > The values of the higher level are often at odds with those of the lower. > > [Krimel] > This is just wrong. Value at higher levels emerges from and are dependant > upon stasis at lower levels. If say a higher level value actually was in > 'conflict' with a lower level value and 'won' the conflict. This would upset > the static balance at the lower level and probably destroy the higher level > altogether. So for example the value of reproduction can result in over > population and biological factors can deplete static balance at lower > levels; as in soil depletion and erosion from over farming the land. The > result is starvation. > > It is more correct to say that values at a higher level may conflict with > each other over static values at a lower level.
There are many references I could cite to support my statement that the values of the higher level are often at odds with those of the lower. Here is just one: "The one dominating question of this century has been, 'Are the social patterns of our world going to run our intellectual life, or is our intellectual life going to run the social patterns.' And in that battle, the intellectual patterns have won." (Lila, 21) Note the use of "battle" and "won." > [Krimel] > > Any 'moral force' (an ill advised term) is not only revealed at lower > > levels but is shaped and constrained by them at higher levels. It is the > > height of folly to suppose that they are not relevant. > > [Platt] > No one claims they aren't "relevant." The claim is science has nothing to > say about DQ, the moral force. > > [Krimel] > Moral force as I said is a horrible meaningless term. Do you mean it as a > force like gravity or electromagnetism? Then certainly it has not more > meaning the ether of phlogiston. If you mean is as force like peer pressure > of population pressure then certainly is can and is studied by science. Here is Pirsig's description of Dynamic Quality: When A. N. Whitehead wrote that "mankind is driven forward by dim apprehensions of things too obscure for its existing language," he was writing about Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of realty, the source of all things, completely simple and always new. It was the moral force that had motivated the brujo in Zuni. It contains no pattern of fixed rewards and punishments. Its only perceived good is freedom and its only perceived evil is static quality itself-any pattern of one-sided fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free force of life." (Lila, 9) You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that science can study a "moral force" that is the "source of all things." I assume from your comment above that anything that science can't study doesn't exist. Right? > [Platt] > The "dismal" sciences? Ah, yes. But once again, you are suggesting static > patterns are all that counts in the MOQ. To you, the moral force of Dynamic > Quality is "ill advised." > > [Krimel] > Science is not just the cataloging of static patterns. It examines the > relationships among them and their affects on each other. Therein lays DQ. Since DQ is pre-intellectual I don't see how it is within relationships since relationships are intellectual divisions of pure experience. 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/
