> [Michael] > Cumbersome, perhaps. But so is "inorganic static pattern of quality" > instead of "matter." > > [Arlo] > I don't think so. My point is that "maximizing potential for > Quality" > is a poor word choice if we are trying to stay accurate to what the > MOQ says. "Potential" is a socio-intellectual pattern of value, it > is > a reflective abstraction and hypothetical projection. I agree that > "potential" is an important consideration here, but as a social or > intellectual pattern. Thus a lioness will protect her young not out > of any sense of "potential" in her young, but as a biological > instinct to propagate her genes. A socialized human may see in her > offspring the potential that her child will surpass her social > standing, produce familial wealth, or protect the family from future > dangers. On the intellectual level, we can discuss "potential" as it > relates to some abstract principle that is worthy of sacrificing > for. > > [Michael] > 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. > > [Arlo] > Sure. And Right here you've already divorced "potential" from any > instinct or innate biological foundation. > > Also, keep in mind that "potential" is not, as we appear to be > talking about it, always something positive. There is the > "potential" > your child will grow up to be a serial killer. Many new parents > dwell > on the potential that their child will get sick, or suffer some > tragedy. When we "maximize potential" it cuts both ways. You can't > maximize the potential for "good" while not also maximizing the > potential for "bad". Just making this clarification. > > [Michael] > 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"? > > [Arlo] > Not worded like this, I don't think. Parents will, naturally, > abstract and begin organizing their affairs around the idea of > producing the best environment for what they see would be an optimal > life for their child. But here you've already made the assumption > that woman (and man) is already projecting longevity, in other > words, > they've already decided to carry the infant to term. Nonetheless, I > do think that it is human nature to "see" possible futures, and I > would gather (with no evidence) that most women who find themselves > pregnant immediately play through a host of possible futures. What I > will say, and I caution, is that in your above formulation you've > already abstracted the child out of the context of the lives of the > parent/s and situations surrounding its conception. A young pregnant > woman faced with the potential for a life of financial burden, > raising a child who will suffer poverty, or any number of other > negative potentials for carrying the pregnancy to term will also > consider these, not JUST the potential future for the developing > infant. MP: Arlo, I get all that. You seem to think I am trying to do something with all this. I'm not. All I'm saying is that it appears we have shown it quite clear that for a human "new pattern" social patterns layer onto the initial "new pattern" biological pattern. The social patterns we (you and I) have identified so far are those of the involved parents; biological mother, birth mother, biological father.
That's it. That's all I'm saying. All I'm asking is that from an MoQ perspective, can we (you and I) agree that this is the case? > [Michael] > 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 > > [Arlo] > Please stop using the royal "we". I am having grade school > flashbacks. :-) Yes, the MOQ would define (IMO) conception as the > beginning point for a new biological pattern. This would hold true > not only of human conception. MP: It was not a royal "we", I meant it as you and me. I hate to add a wrinkle in here, but I think it is worth asking before we move on if patterning of the "new pattern" can be said to exist in advance of conception, in advance of the first moment where the biological factors become infused as a biological pattern? I'm thinking of the "before you were a twinkle in your mother's eye" sort of thing. My instinct is to say "no." That while such "twinkle" certainly led to the making of the new pattern, it cannot be said to be part of it in any demonstrable way more than lets say the fact that the new pattern's grandparents had had similar twinkles a generation before, etc. ad infinitum. To say pre-biological "twinkle" patterning is part of the new pattern in a moral MoQ context would be to blow the lid off any chance of ever nailing down this discussion. But I have to ask it. > [Michael] > 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. > > [Arlo] > Well, again, Michael, you are taking a view that misses the forest > for a few trees. Those advocating the immorality of birth control > don't argue that its immoral because it causes the death of sperm or > eggs. They do so out of a social value that balances a condemning of > extra-marital sex, the idea that birth-control would lead to the > spread of disease, vice and other bad things, as well as an > interpretation of "God's Will" taken from their particular "book". > It > is a social device for curtailing sex, not an immoral judgement > about > "pre-fertilized biological patterns". > > As a social pattern, the MOQ would ask if this "law" was necessary > to > prevent the collapse of society. Or, if passing it would violate an > even greater intellectual pattern. Thus the morality of "birth > control" (from a legal stand point) would say it would be a moral > law > IF it was necessary to prevent society from collapsing and IF it > violated no higher intellectual principle (it is moral for an idea > to > kill a society). > > From a non-legal, "personal" view, no, the MOQ would find nothing > immoral about a barricade that left some dead sperm and > un-fertilized > egg in lieu of a fertilized one. But again, this "morality" is never > brought into question by those advocating such controls, as they are > not concerned with a biological morality, but with a social or > intellectual one. MP: Ok, here I'm going to have to again ask you to not interject opinions like this. I could derail this thread entirely by taking justifiable offense to a lot of what you say and how you say it but will refrain, as I think the discussion we've been having since we stopped doing that sort of thing has been fruitful, to me a definite Quality experience, and I'd like to keep it that way. If we are going to sort out MoQ morality of abortion, we need to stick to neutral intellectual rigor as we recently have managed so well. We need to work from the ground up. Slowly. Methodically. We (you and I) have managed, I think, a few simple, but significant MoQ isolations; 1) conception is the initiating point of the "new pattern" 2) biological patterning is the only initial patterning at and shortly after initiating point 3) social patterning comes into play rather soon, mostly in the form of "potentializing" by several specific factors: biological mother, birth mother, biological father. 4) as the new pattern progresses in time, lack of social patterning in no way diminishes or negates the biological patterning going on. I think that our achievement is notable. I'd like to keep going with it up the "new pattern" evolutionary timeline. But can we (royally now, so as to avoid direct finger pointing out of an attempt at respect) please avoid inserting personal opinion and open bias? If we ever get to the point of having worked out enough MoQ factors (notably the morality of societal intervention into individual pattern behavior, eg:law) then we can delve into that of which you spoke and treat it on its merits and more so relative to our findings on MoQ morality. But at this point in the investigation, it seems to me it is entirely destructive to the intellectual progress of our discussion. > [Michael] > 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? > > [Arlo] > I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. MP: I'm asking, to show that the few steps we've already established in MoQ terms are relevant. I'm asking if you would agree if based on what we have established so far it would be safe to say that MoQ morality would not have invitro as immoral simply because many initiated biological new patterns die off as part of the process of assuring one survives? Would you say that it is safe to say such a practice is not immoral in MoQ terms? I think so. And if you do, we have progress. And we have a clear example of where MoQ morality can speak to society relative to one issue in the culture war related around abortion. Again, progress. > [Michael] > And the insufficiency is social patterning on the part of the > parents. Both parents. That's all I'm saying. > > [Arlo] > Well, not always "both". That's one of the many social contextual > variables at play. MP: No, I'd say *always* "both." Unless a social pattern producer ceases to exist (dies.) Even if the father is a rapist, his social patterning comes into play, even (I'd say arguably more so) if it is negative patterning. Its still patterning. If we say the rapist's patterning does not come into play in MoQ terms, the logical moral result is that the father of a new pattern in a woman pregnant by rape is no different than the one of the new pattern in a woman that got pregnant through a sperm bank donation. No... the rape father pattern is in play. It must be. Same would go for a dead-beat father, or a random consentual casual sex partner. Even to a small degree the sperm bank donor. A child will ask "who's my daddy?" and the answer is social patterning no matter who the daddy was. The point here is to be able to separate out the social implications of a rape, or the other examples while studying the moral implications to MoQ. The rape father comes into social patterning play, but (although we should, to be rigorous, discuss this conclusion) in a negative MoQ moral way. So, while in necessarily in play (he's the biological father, and has had clear social patterning effect on the new pattern) the rejection of the father's continued pattern input would be the MoQ morally supportable position. We could do that with any example, and I think always arrive at the same conclusion: to reject something, you by definition have to acknowledge its existence. Thus his patterning IS in play even if minimal, even if rejected the moment after it has started. > [Arlo] > The rest of our exchange had to do with legality. I'm short on time > today, and this is long already, so I'll skip that for now. MP: I would like it if we could "skip it" until we've sorted out the MoQ factors involved in the new pattern as it relates to something like legality. We can try to have two discussions at once, but I think it will serve only to confuse both discussions in the process. 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/
