MFer' all,
In my first post this month I introduced Wilbur's concept of using evolutionary
timelines starting
at the Big Bang and ranging to the present as a method of ordering events by the
simple "what comes
first method." This ordering of human knowledge of the evolutionary processes is such
that the MoQ
level concept can then be overlayed with a reasonably high degree of precision while
maintaining
sufficient flexiblity to reorder the system as the knowledge base expands and changes
and for the
uniqueness of individual experience.
Rick still wants to know:
> can it [the MoQ] be of any practical value in Moral matters if assigning patterns
>to
> levels is purely a matter of personal choice?"
Or
> [Is] assigning patterns to levels is an 'art' or a 'science'.
3WD
I would suggest this process is a little of both, but more importantly it is dynamic
and ever
changing process.
I surely would not argue that you may "personally choose" to conclude that any pattern
of values (o
r
static qualities or morals) can be assigned to any level, or no levels. You may
choose to conclude
the value " humans must breathe air to live" is a mere social or intellectual
convention. I'm also
sure that a simple experiment with some concrete blocks tied to your ankles and a
swimming pool
would provide a dynamic experience that would quickly convince you of the folly of
subscribing to
this theory. So while individual experiences or events are unique, in their wake, the
static
patterns of value of similar events happening in within the context of a similar
culture and simila
r
time will be in general interpreted similarly. Or as RMP puts it:
"The reason there is a difference between individidual evaluations of quality is that
although
Dynamic Quality is constant, these static patterns are different for everyone because
each person
has a different static pattern of life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the
static patterns
influence his final judgement. That is why there is some uniformity among individual
value
judgements but not complete uniformity." SODV pp 12-13
So I would suggest that there is enough uniformity in our interpretations to be able
reasonably
assign particular values to specific levels with high enough degree of accuracy that
useful moral
relationships can be established without fear that missed assignments would ruin the
system or the
moral judgement.
***********
Bo
> But the word "morals" is perhaps the very problem, loaded to the
> plimsoll mark with ethical connotations. It's terrible difficult to free
> oneself from those limitations and see the VALUE context it gets
> in the Quality Metaphysics. You demand from Intellect to "show
> the highest moral" and it does indeed, BUT ONLY AT THIS LEVEL
> DOES IT GET THE HUMAN-ETHICS FLAVOUR that I think you
> mean when talking about morals.
3WD
Not only this, but to introduce another similarity between Wilbur and Pirsig, each
evolutionary ste
p
that is successful, or in Pirsig's terminology latches, enfolds and transcends all the
steps that
preceeded it. For simplicity sake Pirsig chose only the very broadest and most general
of these
steps but each of the laws, customs, static pattern of values, and morals within
these levels are
also a result of this process. So Bo's SOLAQI idea, while I do not in agree with it in
whole, is a
step in the right direction. Because whether you call it subject/object dualism or SOM
for the MoQ
to latch and continue to evolve it must first enfold and transend these wide ranging
patterns. I
think the diagram I described in the first post maybe a vehicle to help illustrate
this. And
hopefully give insight into the nature of the moral relationships.
to be continued.
3WD
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
