[Michael]
My feeling is that there is an innate biological aspect to protection
of our young which is not socially ingrained. I don't protect my
infant child because society tells me its the right thing to do. A
lioness certainly doesn't either.
[Arlo]
Didn't I say this? I agree that there are biological foundations for
many species instinctual (isn't that another word for biological?)
habits towards self-preservation and preservation of their lineage.
What I add is that on top of this we, as socialized beings, have
developed a host of social patterns that support and or extend from
this. We "see" our lineage in a way that a lioness can not. Because
we have language we are able to cast our young into the past and into
the future, and as such we "understand" the idea of a bloodline in
many ways that go beyond the innate genetic desire to protect our offspring.
[Michael]
That new pattern, that baby, was US *and* itself.
[Arlo]
Yes. And I would argue that YOUR seeing this transcends the ability
of the lioness, who doubtless is instinctual in her care of her
young, but is unable to formulate any concept of "that cub is a
pattern that includes both me and its lion father". Where the lioness
responds with biological instinctiveness, you respond wielding the
arsenal of symbolic concepts.
[Michael]
There is however, I think, the added notion of "potential".
Protecting our young is IMO directly related to our innate
appreciation for their potential...
[Arlo]
I disagree. I doubt that lioness has any formulation for the
"potential" of her cub. "Potential" is one of the symbolic concepts
that we, as social beings with a symbolic mode of relating to
experience, develop. It is not "innate". Where the lioness has no
means to ponder the potential future of her cub as a pride leader, or
great hunter, or whatever, WE-- by virtue of our socially derived
language-- are able to do so. This is not innate, this comes only
with social assimilation. Indeed, the entire enterprise of
abstracting oneself from the immediate present and projecting
ourselves (and our children, and others) into some hypothetical
future realm is possible (aka "potential") is possible only within a
social frame, as sociality underpins language, and language makes
such abstraction possible. No language, no concept of "potential".
Keep in mind that I say this seeing the social formulations we become
able to make as exponentially superior to those allowed only within
the realm of a biological reality. "Social" does not mean imaginary
or made-up or irrelevant or based on something we can just dismiss.
It is a higher recognition of Quality than simple following our
biological urges. And as such I think the social-derived patterns
that are part of the pregnancy lend stronger support than comparing
your instinctual urges to protect your child with certain animal species.
That we share this instinctual biology is not surprising, we are
biological creatures too after all. But we transcend that. We care
for our children from birth to death, we mourn them, we call them on
weekends to hear their voices, we cry when they marry, we break away
from our routines to visit them, we share our lives socially with
them. And all the while language gives us the ability to formulate
many concepts that form the foundation for these relations. Don't
dismiss the ways you respond to your child that are socially derived,
embrace them, as they are more powerful and more profound than
anything that lioness will ever experience.
[Michael]
Is there such a thing as "potential Quality"?
[Arlo]
Again, "potential" is an abstraction that derives from our ability to
divorce ourselves from the present moment and imagine future worlds
(and past ones). We are no doubt motivated by what we envision in
these abstractions. "Potential Quality", as you use the words, seems
akin to me to "intellectual Quality". It is patterns of thought we
form based on our socially-derived ability to abstract and project.
We construct our hypothetical futures, and then these patterns (as
analogues) inform our present activity.
[Michael]
Or is it more that "potential Quality" is what patterns recognizing
Quality learn to do to align themselves in ways so as to better have
Quality experience?
[Arlo]
Expressed like this, you are talking about the strategies for seeing
beyond our analogues Pirsig talks about in ZMM. I guess you could
call it "maximizing the potential for Quality" or something like
that. The language is cumbersome to me, but whatever.
[Michael]
I agree that drawing a line in the continuum would be realistically
arbitrary in this MoQ understanding. However... if the line is drawn
at the intiation point of the continuum, would this not avoid that
problem? In abortion, that would be conception, yes?
[Arlo]
I don't think so, but anywhere you draw the line you create an
arbitrary division that fails to consider the landscape. I'm not sure
what the line is you are drawing with conception, or are you drawing
a line because it seems to you a line should be there, and then
retroactively asking what that line defines? I'd say it represents an
alteration in biology, the egg-now-fertilized responds to its
environment quite differently than it's pre-conception counterpart.
We know that human females begin undergoing biological changes pretty
quickly after conception, so it also represents a change in the
woman's body-chemistry. But I'm not sure what else you could lay at
this fault-line.
Socially, nothing changes. I'd venture that most women don't know
they are pregnant at that moment of conception. And many fertilized
eggs are passed without the woman ever knowing. It is only quite a
bit later that the woman becomes aware of the developing organism in
her uterus, and then social and intellectual patterns become
interwoven into this experience. Consider, that if you're companion
lost your child (and hers too) when the child was 8 months in utero,
you'd likely feel a great sense of loss. But if you were made aware
that a two-hour fertilized egg in your companions uterus was passed,
would you also mourn as much? At all? In the former you'd likely even
say "we lost our baby", would you say that about losing a two-hour
fertilized egg? And here I'd say the difference begins not in
biology, not with the gestational development of the infant, but with
the social and intellectual pattens you bring to bear, and reinforce,
and recreate as the developing infant gets closer to birth.
[Michael]
I find that ludicrous (MoQ morality is relevant to vegetarianism but
not conception/abortion/birth!??) so have to think we can draw that
line *somewhere.*
[Arlo]
The MOQ's stance on vegetarism is contextual, and it also one Pirsig
never advocates legislating. I would imagine he'd say that even
though eating animal flesh in times of plenty is immoral, that
legislating this would constitute an ever greater breech of morality.
Can you imagine a police force tasked with arresting someone for
eating a ham sandwich if there is broccoli in their fridge? And how
would you word this legislation? How would you legally define
"abundance of grains and fruits and vegetables"? Does one handful of
rice count? Or must it be a cornucopia of wheat and oats and apples
and squash and spinach and mangos?
[Michael]
Working from there, we can show that while conception initiates the
pattern, social issues immediately come into play that affect the
pattern. And given those social patterning sources, different MoQ
life valuations already begin, and we are only at the moment after
conception. Relative to abortion, and notably social laws governing
that act, MoQ already has something to say. Yes?
[Arlo]
I agree that this is a broad landscape the MOQ would consider before
any pronouncement of morality may occur (there are also others you
omit, I just want to be clear that the context is still much larger
than the few points you refer to). As I said in my first post, there
are instances of abortion the MOQ would likely consider immoral, as
there are instances the MOQ would consider moral.
But translating this into social law is nightmarish, and something
that may even bring about a greater immorality that the act it
attempts to regulate. I think the best we can do is to preserve the
freedom of the woman to make that choice, but advocate the moral
distinctions you feel exist, and work towards doing everything you
can so that society provides a strong foundation of encouragement for
women to choose what it advocates as being morally superior (the next
time you see a teen mom struggling with an infant in the grocery
store, offer to help, find out if she is in a dire financial
situation (likely, she is) and offer to buy her diapers or baby food,
and if you overhear anyone making smug comments about her situation,
remind them that you feel she is demonstrating great moral fabric by
raising her child).
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/
