Re: MD Pirsigian Test

[RISKYBIZ9]

ROG ANSWERS PLATT'S GREAT QUESTIONS, BUT COMES OUT WITH A QUESTIONABLE RECORD Morality exists outside of a social/cultural context? If morality means quality or value ...yes.  But if that is what morality means, then why use the word "morality? We possess a sense of quality that is a genuine perception? This one seems misleading or oversimplified. Our senses are of quality.  We are of quality. Values are a separate category from subjects or objects? No, subjects and objects are types of value patterns. People have different ideas about Quality because of different patterns of life history? Yes. The world is primarily a moral order? Again only if moral means quality or value or interrelationships.  The choice of word "moral" is not of high quality. It is confusing and it brings in religious baggage that detracts from the statement.  In its own terms, substituting "morality" for "value" is immoral. Everything on earth emerged as the result of ethical activity? Again, only if this means out of the advancement of quality. Evolution is a moral process? Ditto. Dynamic Quality is pulling the patterns of life forward to greater levels of versatility and freedom? Yes Without Dynamic Quality the world cannot grow? Without static Quality, it cannot last? Good metaphor. Individual human beings are composites of four moral levels: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual? Another good metaphor. Everyone runs the same “me” program that doesn’t belong to anyone? Not sure here.   Cells have a special intelligence all their own? Yes, life is cognitive Morality of the biological world is based on might makes right? Gross oversimplification. Quality in the biological level involves the continuation and propagation of a living pattern.  Competition and might are high quality strategies, but so is cooperation and synergy. Truth is built by the language of the group? Truth is based on consistency within a proposition, between other truths and with experience.  Certainly the context of a truth is critical. More than one set of truths exists? Yes, as contexts differ.  Some are of higher quality than others. High quality truth is empirical, logical, elegant and brief? Yes. Communism and socialism are programs for intellectual control of society? Like Plato's Republic, they are both early misguided attempts with a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature, social reality and any semblance of understanding of the critical methodology of science.  On an intellectual scale of 1 to 10, neither theory even makes it to a 1. The current intellectual theories that are of high quality involve research into complex adaptive systems and other tangents of complexity theory.   Since the 60’s there has been a drop in intellectual and social quality? Of course not.  In fact, some people still believed in socialism back then, and complexity theory (let alone the MOQ) wasn't even created yet. Certainly the evolutionary advance of both is not without some plateaus and even temporary dips.  However, overall, New York is a safer, cleaner, wealthier, more law abiding place now than it was in Lila, and I suspect it is just as dynamic, if not more so. If the evolutionary-advance concepts of Lila are correct, New York will be even better in another 100 or 200 years. Cooperation without coercion is a devastating fiction? No, at least not with the usual interpretation of the word coercion.  It is well documented that cooperation can and does emerge of its own accord and can be an evolutionarily stable strategy.  Read Axelrod and discover the truth of uncoerced cooperation called "Tit-for-Tat." This strategy is that the most productive strategy of interaction is to cooperate with others until such a time as they cheat or attempt to exploit you (ie not cooperate with you).  At which point you withdraw cooperation until they again choose to play nicely. I guess if we extend the definition of "coersion" to include the threat of no longer extending the benefits of cooperation then I agree with this statement.  Certainly Tit-for-Tat recognizes that people will cheat and exploit and take advantage of others if allowed to. Reality is understood by every infant? Yes.  The problem is that they are too young to write text-books at the time.   Platt, does this make me a non-Pirsigian? I would be glad to engage in an exercise to "explain and defend" views with you. Rog