Hi PzEph:
WHOA THERE YOURSELF!
A basic requirement for intellect is extensive intellectual capacity,
something which on this planet belongs exclusively to the human
species.
I agree with Roger�s description of the intellectual level:
�I believe the intellectual level refers to the systematic art of
building and testing simplified intellectual models that allow us to
identify, learn, test, categorize, record and apply our experience.�
Show me a dolphin with such capacity and I�ll stop eating tuna fish
sandwiches.
You wrote:
> I don't normally indulge in inter-level conflicts but....
>
>
> WHOA THERE PLATT!
>
> It's Intellect which is supposed to be the morally higher level, not the
> Human species. If you want to cure yourself of the confusion between the
> two, hit town somewhere near rush hour.
>
> And since it's intellect, not humanity, which is morally more evolved than
> society (which isn't a human preserve either) or biology, it follows that
> the requirements of intellect (what ever they might be) come first, not the
> survival, and certainly not the whim, of the human species.
>
> As to what the requirements of intellect might be, perhaps we should get
> together with the Dolphins to answer this one.... anyone have their email
> address?
>
> Maybe what intellect requires for it's survival in the long term is that the
> people who claim to possess it don't go around destroying the planet.
>
> Maybe. Who knows?
>
> -Elephant
>
> P.S. I really have no idea what the requirements of intellect might be,
> BTW, or how we can ask intellect to tell us. I guess we can assume that
> being put in a concentration camp for thinking that Hitler is an idiot is a
> Bad Idea. But beyond that, I don't see how intellectualism can consititute
> a moral or political manifesto, precisely because it can constitute an
> infinite number. Similar arguments would apply to "soceity" and, indeed,
> "biology". See you in Forum to pursue the point.
>
>
> > From: "Platt Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:36:52 -0500
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: MD MOQ and other species
> >
> > Hi Danila:
> >
> > You asked, �Where human needs threaten to annihilate a
> > species, should human needs prevail? If so, why?�
> >
> > I suggest you�ll find the MOQ answer in Lila, Chap. 13:
> >
> > �In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other
> > things being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at
> > a higher level of evolution, is more moral. An example of this is the
> > statement that, "It's more moral for a doctor to kill a germ than to
> > allow the germ to kill his patient." The germ wants to live. The
> > patient wants to live. But the patient has moral precedence
> > because he's at a higher level of evolution.
> >
> > �Taken by itself that seems obvious enough. But what's not so
> > obvious is that, given a value-centered Metaphysics of Quality, it is
> > absolutely, scientifically moral for a doctor to prefer the patient.
> > This is not just an arbitrary social convention that should apply to
> > some doctors but not to all doctors, or to some cultures but not all
> > cultures. It's true for all people at all times, now and forever, a
> > moral pattern of reality as real as H20. We're at last dealing with
> > morals on the basis of reason.�
> >
> > Humans have all but destroyed the species of germ that causes
> > smallpox. Last I heard there were several small vials of the deadly
> > virus frozen solid in well-guarded laboratories in Atlanta and
> > Moscow while virologists and others argue about whether to kill
> > them outright, thereby destroying the species permanently. The
> > argument for keeping them alive in suspended animation is
> > maybe we will find a beneficial use for them someday.
> >
> > The MOQ has no qualms, morally, for destroying other species on
> > the grounds that they are on a lower level of evolution than
> > humans. The only MOQ caveat is the one you expressed��except
> > for the need for social stability.�
> >
> > Our evolutionary path to DQ is �better� than other species because
> > we are already at a higher level of evolution, i.e., more Dynamic
> > which, in MOQ terms, means higher value = more moral = better.
> >
> > What bothers me about this MOQ view is it leaves no allowance
> > for the virtue of beauty. Not that I care about the beauty of a
> > smallpox virus. But there are many species of, for instance,
> > flowers, which we humans could well destroy under the MOQ
> > theory of right/wrong. But what about the loss to us of their beauty?
> > Would that not be immoral? Sometimes I think the MOQ misses
> > an understanding of :
> >
> > To see a world in a grain of sand
> > And heaven in a wildflower
> > To hold infinity in the palm of your hand
> > And eternity in an hour
> > -- William Blake
> >
> > I�m still absorbing your latest �Art & Intellect� post and hope to
> > have a cogent response in a few days.
> >
> > Platt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
