This one's a tuffy to put into contextual form in the model. Each layer is striving towards value, or morality, yet humans seem to have a 'higher' sense of morals than say, a cat or a dog. That is most certainly why our human social structures are so much more complexly interrelated. What I see around me is harmonic quality which we as humans tend to ignore in favor of what other humans tell us is correct.
Perhaps what happens is that we, as humans, learn to call Morality one thing, and Dyamic Quality another, therefore what the universe is striving for, and what we are striving for, often seem at polar odds with each other, but I think my model clearly shows that it is instead at a 90 degreeness to each other.
I am unsure as of now how to put morality into the model, other than to say that from my reading of Lila, Pirsig says they are one and the same thing, morality and quality. I agree. I say its our perception of morality that makes individual morality so unpredictable. Instead of viewing Quality Events as human moral events, we must learn to see the underlying nature of reality and how value arises seemingly out of nowhere and goes right back there again, only to arise once more in a self regenerating rippling movement, or wimple.
What is the purpose behind human morality? We look to nature for clues and the first thing we notice, is that nothing in nature gets up and goes off to school or work in the morning except the human animal. This is an important clue and we will come back to it later. Next, we notice that the only thing in nature that demands retribution for a perceived wrong is the human animal. Dogs don't put each other on trial for killing each other, nor do trees.
Following this trail, we are able to see that there may be many interpetations we as humans make about reality that the rest of the universe does not. It is in defining what those differences are that may lead to discovering these causal events and where these causal events occur within the model that will lead to expanded awareness of a meaning to this question.
What is the purpose for documents like the Ten Commandments and the Buddhist Precepts? Usually we think of those documents as something that makes us a 'better' person. But if we look at this question via MoQ, we begin to see that the Ten Commandments are not intended to make the individual a 'better' person, rather they are intended to make society a higher value situation than the individual situation.
This type of morality ties the individual to society rather than to their own individual interests. Thou shalt not kill (The Hebrew language employs several words to express the idea 'to kill') allows value situations to arise between individuals and groups of individuals who would perhaps otherwise kill each other off in a less moral society.
If we were in the habit of murdering each other at a moments notice, society would never have been able to form. The other commandments deal exclusively with precepts for living together in society in harmony with each other, side by side, along with a long list of retributions designed to steer individuals away from low value social events into high value events that sharing ideas with each other sometimes creates. Take working for a living for example. We are conditioned from the time we are very young to take a value place in society by contributing as individuals to the social layer...by subordination of our 'self' to the greater value of society. We are slaves to society, whether we like it or not, or know it or not.
In this way, we begin to see that human morality arises by the interaction of humans with each other and with their environment, or within the social layer of the MoQ wimple model. While this morality may seem to be somewhat at odds with the morality in nature, we see that without human morality, the social layer would not produce value situations which the intellect layer values.
Let's attempt to put the social layer into a model and see if we can plug in some attributes and intuit in this way where morality arises. By seeing that morals are needed by society, what constitutes a minimum society? Since there must be four points in space to create 3 dimensional reality, we will say a minimum of four people are needed to become a society.
What I have done is add possible relationships between people in a society to the model. In the first layer will be a minimum society of four people. Probability tells us to find the number of relationships between these people we multiply 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 24 possible relationships between four people.
In the next layer there will be 24 people, or points of possible relationships, and to find the sum of that number we will multiply 24 x 23 x 22 etc. until we get our number for this layers possible relationships. Since it requires a more expansive calculater than I own to figure out that enormous number, I will label it 24P(Probabilized). Whatever number that happens to be is contained within the third outer level, and that number again multiplied by each successively lower number gives us the number of possible relationships within the outer layer.
By visualizing the models expansion capabilities in this way, we can see why relationships with others MUST BE REGULATED IN SOME WAY TO SURVIVE. God spoke to ancient prophets and handed down a set of laws which made it possible for society to form very complex interlocking relationships with less chance of low value situations arising, and greater chances of high value situations to arise.
This in turn allowed the increased high value situations of human beings perceiving the intellect layer lying in an even more expansive intellect layer.