> [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.
MP: Cumbersome, perhaps. But so is "inorganic static pattern of quality" instead of "matter." Relative to this discussion though, I think it highly relevant and critical to recognize the potentiality aspect that drives our actions around a newborn in an MoQ language. I see that potential as one of the main drivers of why some people react one way and others another to the idea of aborting that life at various stages in its development. Defining that obvious aspect in MoQ terms will help keep the ensuing discussion on MoQ track. Can we agree that "maximizing the potential for Quality" by the parents is a patterning factor that comes into play early on in the "new life pattern"? > [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. MP: Maybe not much else, but I think we've established that to draw the line BEFORE this biological moment is to be jumping the MoQ morality gun. In other words; in an MoQ language the new life pattern starts at conception. That's it. That's all I'm saying that line does. It says that before conception, the elements that end up combining to make up the pattern once conception occurs are not in themselves considerable as the "new life pattern." If nothing else, this establishes that in MoQ understanding there is no immediate and obvious immorality to preventing a pregnancy, where in some social or cultural morality systems there is. Yes? > [Arlo] > 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. MP: These are all valid points. These are all points to argue that in MoQ morality, there is a continuum of greater and greater patterning as time goes on. This is actually very relevant as a step forward. It would, I think, and if you'll agree for example establish in vitro as not MoQ immoral simply because so many of the fertilized eggs die off, yes? The biological patterning is minimal, the social patterning non-existent (the parents don't worry about the dead eggs, just the surviving one once it becomes clear it has a chance.) Again, a difference from many social moral views of that practice. > [Arlo] > 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. MP: Yes, we are saying the same thing. I'm trying to point out that to get at MoQ morality on abortion we have shown that Steve's example is insufficient. And the insufficiency is social patterning on the part of the parents. Both parents. That's all I'm saying. Its relevant to have determined this, because as we move forward, it is clear, from an MoQ moral perspective that the parents' patterning, and notably their social patterning, not just their biological (as Steve suggested), defines the new pattern. Biologically, its from conception, DNA. Socially, I think we still need some discussion to determine if its from conception or later. Personally, I'm not sure I am on board with the social patterning not being at conception as well. Just because we don't cry over a lost fertilized egg in the womb, I guarantee you a couple that spent $35,000 to have 20 eggs fertilized in vitro of which only one survived, but then died a short time later would be pretty upset over that one dead egg. They'd be sad about the money, to be sure, but they would be sad about that lost egg. They invested cash to get it, but once it was the only surviving one, they began investing hope. Admittedly, this would all be occurring past the immediate point of conception, so yes, seems reasonable to say that the conception point, while marking the official pattern starting point, is really a biological only point. Social patterning starts somewhat later. However.... It is important to note that lack of certain social patterning (eg: an obese woman gets pregnant and doesn't discover she is until third trimester) in no way diminishes or negates other patterning going on during the interim. I think we would all agree that abortion of that third trimester fetus via partial birth abortion because the woman doesn't want it would be immoral in just about any framework, yes? But generally speaking, can we agree that any discussion of MoQ morality on abortion takes conception as the starting point of the pattern being aborted? Even if the only thing having gone on at that point is a simple biological change? > [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. MP: Need to stop jumping ahead Arlo. I'm not talking about writing laws on abortion at this point. I'm trying to sort out the MoQ morality involved to at least a level that the vegetarianism example has been. > Arlo writes: > 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. MP: The "nightmarish" aspect is only there because we have not completed our investigation of all the MoQ moral implications up the chain to the social level. Given what we have now, we can easily say it would be an MoQ moral law that says society may not interfere with an abortion choice in the first few weeks, and that the choice in that period resides with the consenting parents mutually, or in the absence of consentual conception with the woman that bears the child and any consenting adult that donated either the egg or sperm in a private agreement with the involved parties. Or something to that effect. So, if nothing else, we have that. I think by analyzing the next level of patterning, the social ones of the parents, and then of society, we may be able to get more. Or not. but we won't know unless we keep at it. > Arlo writes: > I think the best we can do is to preserve the > freedom of the woman to make that choice, MP: I think to do so without studying the moral implications of jumping to that conclusion as you do would be irresponsible. We have, even in this short discussion shown that there is a social patterning going on in the "new pattern" VERY early and that in a typical situation, the father is part of that patterning. Just blatantly saying it should be the woman's choice where we have already shown that the father is part of the pattern IMO is to jump to a conclusion to avoid the complexity of actually getting to it through the intellectual work entailed in getting to it. Society, not the MoQ has imbued the woman with this "right to choice" to which you steadfastly cling and return prematurely in this discussion. It may well turn out, after all this that your instinct is accurate. Maybe after 3 months, the woman's biological patterning input over-rides the father's initial one, and any social patterning. I don't know. But I'm of a mind to go through the rigorous MoQ analysis to get us there. Without that we'll be right back to your opinion v. anyone else's. That is to say; nowhere. MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/
