Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Platt Holden
> Sent: Tuesday, 7 November 2000 4:13
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Pirsig's letter - A response
>
>
> The hoary argument about whether beauty is in the eye of
> the beholder or resides in the object perceived solely arises from
> the SOM paradigm. In the MOQ, the question doesn’t arise
> because beauty (Quality) is a separate category from subjects or
> objects. What’s more, subjects and objects are sub-categories of
> Quality, as are dynamic and static quality.
>
> How you divide Quality (pure awareness) is the major issue facing
> metaphysicians, but most never question or even mention the
> SOM division. They simply assume it. Pirsig is the first
> philosopher in history to talk unambiguously about the “first slice”
> the “first cut” and to question the SOM assumption in no uncertain
> terms. Pirsig writes:
>
> “There already is a metaphysics of Quality. A subject-object
> metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first division of
> Quality—the first slice of undivided experience—is into subjects
> and objects. Once you have made that slice, all of human
> experience is supposed to fit into one of these two boxes. The
> trouble is, it doesn't. What he had seen is that there is a
> metaphysical box that sits above these two boxes. Quality itself.
> And once he'd seen this he also saw a huge number of ways in
> which Quality can be divided. Subjects and objects are just one of
> the ways.” (Lila, Chap.9)
>
The method of analysis we seem to use, from a neurological perspective, is
that of applying 1:many type dichotomies recursively. The major distinction
is that of what(object)/where(relationships). We can particularise these
into who/which (from what) and when/how(from where).
The initial 'cut', the first distinction, forces an A/~A categorisation. At
a basic level this is very EITHER/OR and so stimulus/response in behaviour.
Feedback processes can act to flesh this distinction out. These are in the
form of applying the A/~A to itself such that over a number of steps the
original elements of A and ~A are pushed aside as a rich harvest of forms
emerge from the middle of the original dichotomy; the excluded middle of
logic is found to be rich in potentials.
If you look at the development path of the neocortex it is tracable back to
our reptilian/amphibian cousins. If you then reflect on the expressions of
these primitive brains so a sharp divide emerges where the original
behaviours were very EITHER/OR, conservative with an emphasis on
'correct/incorrect'; a preference for the tried and true, a strong sense of
territory and intense preservation of species/self.
It is possible to trace some of this fundamentalist approach back to such
behaviours as waypoint mapping where territory is the emphasis and the
mapping is made-up of marking territory as in 'mine -- not mine -- mine'etc
etc (i.e. 'first tree on the left and then across to the bush and then
...'). We can see rats do this when running mazes (studying their
hippocampus whilst they run) and we seem to see this in London taxi drivers
as they learn 'the Knowledge'.
In this context 'truth' is sourced in feelings of ownership, of
external-to-internal linkage and is VERY ONE (truth)/MANY (all of the rest -
lies).
These feelings seem to have been refined to a level where they are used for
syntax checking in language.
However, the rigid A/~A approach does not help in adapting to contexts, we
need to be able to dynamically modify A/~A behaviours, we need to take gene
determined stimulus/response behaviours and refine them in realtime, learn
to be discerning in response. This discerning process introduces us into
feedback processes and a development of qualitative distinctions beyond
rigid A/~A distinctions; we move from the general to the particular,
increasing context sensitivity as we go.
The process of refinement is the creation of habits in that the taking of a
gross A/~A stimulus and developing a range of qualitative responses leads to
a return to stimulus/response but now with choices in expression; we move
within a context 'with ease', we ooze 'confidence' and 'quality' in that
context and text (ie the object, the person) have become intergrated and
form a tight but flowing relationship.
When you look at the neurology you see a definite cut where part of the
brain is single context, literal minded dealing with a fundamental harmonic
and the other part is secondary+ harmonics oriented; multi-context, metaphor
minded. This latter part is highly biased to contextual analysis, relational
processes and so sensitive to sensory harmonics, i.e. colours and chords.
We see here the distinction between quantitative precision (the point bias,
the ONE) and qualitative precision (the relationships, field bias, the
MANY).
In memory, the best memories are those that have a rich set of harmonics and
it is harmonics that 'make' quality. IOW entangling sensory data aids in
encoding and recall. BUT the general method of doing all of this seems to be
grounded in the recursion of 1:many type dichotomies.
This process of determining meaning, of painting objects/relationships with
feelings, is fundamental to the species with local nuances emerging from
cultural or individual differences related directly to local context.
Quality emerges from aspectual analysis, it can lack quantitative precision
but then quantitative precision is 'context-free' and so NOT as adaptable,
quantitative precision can be too rigid and when we try to refine it we move
into complexity/chaos concepts where there is order but indeterminate,
loaded with probabilities; quality has a flow about it, a dynamic and here
we see a linkage of the qualitative and the quantitative -- but then this is
a dichotomy and the method of analysis forces dichotomies to oppose and then
cooperate. (or collapse backwards).
In this context, since reality is 'dynamic' so quality can be categorised as
equalling 'reality'. However when you focus on these processes the dynamic
contains within it archetypes that seem to be like the quantitative
elements, context-free; you see reality as an entanglement of the
fundamental distinctions of A/~A and it is interesting that we take more
notice of ~A, of difference, then we do of A, sameness. (the neurology
actually habituates to sameness).
> We still often hear, “Beauty is in the eye of beholder.” Whenever
> someone uses that little word “in” you know they are in SOM mode
> (as I am at the moment). “In” and it’s opposite, “out,” are brief
> forms of “inside” and “outside.” From that simple division comes
> Idealism (inside) and Materialism (outside) along with a host of
> other SOM divisions that are rarely, if ever, questioned.
>
Your METHOD of analysis forces these distinctions upon you, forces the
feelings of meaning upon you.
you can list dichotomies such as:
inside/outside
within/without
behind/between
Darwin/Lamarck
objects/relationships
the one/the many
gene/meme
positive/negative
static/dynamic
and so on.
Applying recursion leads to the emergence of sets of meanings that are
mappable to fundamental sets of feelings linked to the basic
object/relationship distinctions thus:
OBJECT biases:
feelings of blending, of becoming/unbecoming one = WHOLES emphasis.
feelings of bounding, of distinction of 'them' from 'us' = PARTS emphasis.
Note that a PART is an object but one that is in a RELATIONSHIP to a
'greater' object aka a whole.
RELATIONSHIP biases:
feelings of bonding, of sharing space with someone/something 'for ever'.
STATIC relationships.
feelings of binding, of sharing a dynamic process (e.g. contracts,
transitions etc). DYNAMIC relationships.
Add positive/negative (synonymous with text/context, foreground/background)
and you have eight fundamental feelings that when combined with each other
lead to more complex feelings and so on.
The set of feelings moves from 8 to 64 to 4096 to 16 million+ very quickly
and all of that from a simple A/~A distinction!
What controls how many choices you have is based on the ability to detect
difference, thus some forms are 'rich' in expression and others not and
those that are rich in difference become more context sensitive, more
adaptive and so we 'see' much in them. Given a rich context these forms can
'shine', put in a poor context and they can die.
You can believe whatever you wish. The feedback processes, sourced in
harmonics analysis, add quality and since the feedback is sourced 'out
there' so we can make the linkage of 'quality=reality' but always within the
method of analysis in that it is the method that sets the context within
which we find/create meaning.
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST