Ben Compton wrote:
> In this message, morality is defined as that which increases the
> creativity of our fellowmen. This is implied in the statement that "as our
> creativity decays our morals decay."
>
> Which brings me back to me original question: What is moral? How do we
> know what is moral? These are important questions to answer before we say
> that we've experienced "moral decay."
While I was still caught up in the paradigm of the industrial era, I
believed that morality is a testament, something which we inherit from
previous generations to make life more bearable. I also believed that
morality could be promoted by making more laws and excecuting them.
Ben made a wonderful inference from my contribution by connecting
"morality" to "promoting creativity among our fellow humans". It
summarises my personal operational definition for morality. Obviously, it
depends on what I perceive as creativity. My perception of creativity
changed immensely after I have shifted from the paradigm of the industrial
era. I now fully appreciate what Clay Carr once wrote, namely that the
most important point we can make about the universe is that it is
creative. My personal, operational definition for creativity summarises my
perspective on creativity: creativity is the result of entropy creation.
Ben is quite right. We cannot identify 'moral decay' without being able to
identify 'morality'. But we also cannot identify morality in any
circular/recursive manner because of the asymmetric-transitive nature of
emergences. I have discussed this nature in another contribution. This
means that 'morality' has to emerge from something else, which is nothing
else than creativity. Likewise creativity itself emerges from entropy
production. I cannot perceive a more primordial cause.
I believe that I am able to identify creativity in its full complexity by
means of the operational definition given above. Let us assume it to be
the case. The question then in terms of Ben's drive is: can we identify
'creative decay'? For example, can we observe that while a decreasing
fraction of humans become more creative, an increasing fraction of humans
become less creative.
I am not alone in observing that there is a general decline in creativity
among humans. See for example David Bohm on this matter. But let us assume
it to be the case. What will be the consequences? Is it not the case that
most of the people who's creativity is increasing, are rejoicing in the
fact that there are less among whom the cake has to be divided? This will
indeed be the case if those becoming more creative fail to see the
connection between creativity and morality.
However, I am probably more alone by observing that creativity is also a
matter of spontaneity and not only chaos-order. In other words, the
'creative decay' is caused by more people becoming nonspontaneous towards
most creative actions. The really frightening thought is that the paradigm
of the industrial era, namely 'force them by external control and work to
behave similar to creative people', shoots itself in the foot. This
paradigm cannot provide for emergences in general - that which is needed
to become spontaneous - because it cannot force them. In other words, our
present paradigm is fast becoming immoral! Why? Because it cannot promote
the creativity of our fellow humans anymore. Thus we need to shift our
paradigm in order to become also morally rejuvenated.
Christians believe and witness that when Jesus the Christ becomes their
paradigm, they experience such a moral rejuvenation. However, no Christian
can force another persons to behave similar to Christians. There is no
command in Scripture to this effect. Those who do believe in externally
forcing others to behave similar to Christians merely witness to the
frightening effect of the old paradigm.
What then about those who are not Christians and who do not intend to
become Christians. Should they be left in the hell of the old paradigm to
try and save themselves from its abdominable consequences? Even worse, is
my tone now becoming patronising? If there is one thing we can learn from
Jesus, it is to live like Him. He served rather than patronising others.
And He did not moralise in the way we humans so easily do. He reassured us
on the supreme law of morality: love God unconditionally and love our
fellow humans as ourselves. The greatest joy is to EMERGE into this
highest level possible, namely the level of Love.
Ben, the answer to your question 'What is moral' is complex. I tried to
answer some part of it. I love it when a person becomes more creative. I
am filled with joy when a person create in such a manner that it promotes
the creativity of all other people. This is the kind of morality with
which I side with. But I hate it when society causes a person to become
less creative. I cry when such a person finally believes that his/her
creativity is a menace to society. This the kind of morality which I
cannot even tolerate. It makes people so dumb that they cannot even
understand the next five words: TO LEARN IS TO CREATE. These five words
imply that if we wish to promote the learning organisation, then we have
to promote the creating organisation. The acid test for having promoted a
creating organisation is whether that organisation has become morally
alive!!!!
Thus a true learning organisation cannot be morally dead.
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>