Hello all,
This is my first note to the group. Please forgive me if you feel that this post is
not as focused as you're used to. I'm hoping that putting this out - warts and all -
will help me to feel my way to contributions that will improve in quality over time.
Confession: Although I have read ZMM many, many times, I've only read Lila once - a
while back. Because I've discovered this discussion though, I plan to revisit it...
======================
"Explain why the Dynamic is more moral than the static. We cannot leave this hanging.
For example, we could grade morality, ala Ken Wilbur, based upon the degree of pattern
as a whole and as a part. The problem here is that this is not just adding to the MOQ,
it is CHANGING it. However, it solves LOTS of problems!"
======================
My sense is that is that these qualities are dependent on an approach to interaction
(is light a particle or a wave?). As I view the water fountain from which I'm about to
take a drink I notice both the static nature of its parabolic shape as it reaches up
to my lips, and the dynamism of the water flow. For the purposes of this note, I take
morality to mean: "Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of
human action and character". In short: the human moving towards arete or away from
arete.
Although various components/levels include the biological, intellectual, social, etc.,
my aim is to the person - the human individual - which to me, like the water fountain,
is defined by both static and dynamic qualities. The person to me, when viewed through
my 'static lens' is not intellect independent of his or her emotional or 'reptilian'
aspects. The person's wholeness is defined by the balance of all of these aspects. The
'wholeness' of the person is made up of parts which come together to create that
wholeness, but the person is also a part in relationship to a 'super-setted' whole
(such as society).
I mention this because this is where I take out my surgical laser and carve out the
individual human being in (temporary) isolation in order to respond to discussion of
morality. In other words, when I discuss morality, I frame it as an individual. I am
not a society or Gaia. (Actually, that's not true, I am a society - a society of that
within me - but what I mean is a society of which I am a part). When I look out to
greater society to discuss the morality of a pattern of existence that is greater than
myself, I will always tend to view it from my individual frame of reference. To me, a
society that best respects individual humans is a higher quality society than one that
doesn't.
Given the limitation of my frame of reference, like the scientist above, I can now
look at a person as either a 'particle' (static) or a 'wave' (dynamic):
Person as particle (Static): Viewed as a 'chunk', it seems to me that the moral 'duty'
of each person is to be as excellent as they can be as individuals. It's that simple.
The buck stops here.
Person as wave (Dynamic): Viewed as a pattern in the larger continuum, it seems that
my duty should include consideration of the larger continuum - as a part of the
dynamic flow of existence. I can see that, like swirling conical eddies in a river, my
(chunked) individualism is really an illusion.
My sense is that although humans are both dynamic and static, the Dynamic view is more
"real", a closer description of what humans really are.
1. What is moral = what is good = being human
2. Two aspects of being human include:
a) Being discrete (static, particle, digital)
b) Being part of a flow (dynamic, wave, analogue)
3. Therefore, being moral encompasses both, but...
4. Because dynamic is more "real", dynamic quality is more 'moral'
Cheers
Bill
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
