Re: Function, Symbiosis - value judgements

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

Dan,

I like that Leopold quote. :)

But I wonder: how do we measure integrity and stability? Certainly we would
do so using timeframes that are "friendly" to us. For other kinds of
creatures, though, they may have other preferred timeframes against which
measures of stability and integrity would be cast. Moreover, the choice of
observables from the environment that we choose to measure in order to
quantify this stability will be ones that we can detect, and which seem to
us sensibly related to a notion of stability. Other species might well
'measure' stability by entirely different sets of observables. So, even in
the case of these 'quantitative' notions, we are probably still being
heavily biased in our favor.

Perhaps, though, we can speculate that if we use longer timeframes amenable
for larger creatures such as ourselves, then generally creatures that prefer
shorter timeframes will find our intervals of stability as very stable.
Or....perhaps, if we choose several species of various types.....and use
several types of measurements of stability over several timeframes.... ?

Regards,
Tim

P.S. - For what its worth, from what I have surveyed I'm partial to the
translation of the Tao Te Ching by Hua-Ching Ni ("The Complete Works of
Lao-Tzu").


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Dan
> Fiscus
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 2:57 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Function, Symbiosis - value judgements
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Here are those two quotes/passages I mentioned that present
> different views
> on how or whether to tell good/bad, right/wrong in terms of human actions
> in context of a biosphere, home, environment.
>
> "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and
> beauty of
> the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." Aldo Leopold
> in "A
> Sand County Almanac", 1948.
>
> Two things I like here are that he uses life as an adjective to describe
> a kind of
> community; and he covers both the quantitative (integrity and
> stability) as
> well as the qualitative (beauty) aspects of life as community.
>
> I don't have my copy of Mitchell's translation of Tao Te Ching here, but
> I can
> paraphrase a neat passage in his notes. He credits this story to some
> book or
> author, but I forget which/who. The gist of the story is - A
> man's horse ran
> away and all the people of his village came to offer their condolences
> for his
> loss. A sage said, "How can you tell that this is not a good thing?"
> Later the
> man's horse returned with another horse of another breed and the
> two created
> very strong offspring together. The villagers offered their
> congratulations, but
> the sage said, "How can you tell that this is not a disaster?" The man
> became
> rich and successful in the horse breeding/selling business. In all the
> horse
> business going on his son was actively involved as a worker. One
> day he was
> thrown by a horse and broke his hip. The villagers came and offered their
> sympathy, but the sage said again, "How can you tell that this is not a
> good
> thing?" Later a war broke out and most of the young men were conscripted
> and went to fight, and the majority that did were killed in the
> war. Due to
> the broken hip the man's son was spared this fate.
>
> Mitchell uses this story to back up the passages in the Tao that
> suggest the
> wisest approach is to not label, assign, judge things as good or
> bad, but to
> remain impartial, to embrace both aspects. He and the Tao also seem to
> imply, though, that impartial is good, or that for world events or
> dynamics,
> "its all good".
>
> I see "value" in both Leopold's assertive judgement as well as the Tao's
> radical
> impartiality. It is not an easy marriage but requires a kind of permanent
> acceptance of paradox or unsettledness or uncertainty. As such it seems to
> me that all decision making or policy that seeks to be science-based or
> rational will forever require a leap of faith to span at least some
> uncertainty
> and unknowability. We can make our best model, know it is incomplete, but
> then act based partly on what "feels right" with the model aiding
> but myriad
> other factors contributing, some of which we may not be able to explain or
> even articulate in words.
>
> Dan