Hi Roger, hi Dan, hi all
To Roger:
Indeed, to agree with Dan, your answer to Riff was a very good post to which I
agree overwhelmingly. I once intended to compress that subject for myself, in
effort to find the weak points (or seemingly weak only) of the MoQ. I sometimes
thought, whether I was the only person to sense those thin but nevertheless
visible cracks in Pirsigs work, which I however admire greatly.
Dan Glover wrote:
[...]
> Here is something to start with then: if everyone wins, who is losing?
> Don't we define a winner by the loser and visa versa? I suspect this has
> much to do with Phaedrus and his experiment of not giving out grades
> (ZMM)... if I recall it ultimately failed but did shine much light on
> our concepts of winning and losing.
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> Dan
To Dan and Roger:
This is a valuable point to mention, indeed. It also is an aspect I'm trying to
integrate into my 'systems'-concept. I find this positive-sum concept very
attractive and I must admit that I paid to less attention to it. I consider the
win-win behaviour as presumably the most important strategy during the
q-evolution (to distinguish from the darwinian evolution), although not the only
one.
Therefore your objection is weighty, but only correct when assuming a
'steady-state'. What in fact makes me take up your question, are my
considerations about good theories. 'Good' is only 'Good', when there is anybody
(or something) who is bad, true can only be true, if there is something that
differs from what is considered to be true (note my careful expression ;-) ).
And also to call any situation a win-win-situation is only making sense, if
there is something/somebody that has lost, i.e. at least there is a - whatsoever
it looks like - a contrasting something/somebody.
In my systems-concept I call the win-win-situation, cooperative strategy (which
is not really new, but I'd like to see it in a broader sense). Up to a certain
stage the win-win/cooperative-strategy is playing the superior role in the
q-evolution, but there is always a point (bi/-multifurcation) where this
strategy is no more working concerning the considered systems-boundary. What I
call 'certain stage' above is nothing that is reached arbitrarily.
What I try to figure out is the structure of Pirsig-levels, which I intend to
dissect in smaller steps, called dimensions (working- concept only).
Every of these dimensions represents a single step of additional quality. These
dimensions have IMO a certain but nevertheless limited capacity. At the
beginning of a new dimension/a new quality, there is a strong tendency to avoid
(...I guess to avoid sharing with other organisms ALL dimensions, so at least
one dimension).
Next the 'systems' (your candidate- the votes please :-) ) start the cooperative
strategy, because when they cannot avoid anymore they have to change strategies.
And when a dimension is starting to be rather 'crowded' - so q-evolution
conditions get harder - all involved 'valuebeings' tend to oust other riveling
'valuebeings', which in turn increases the possibilty of a new dimension. This
is the moment when dynamic quality - once a large enough number of valuebeings
reaching 'zones' of destabilisation - is doing it's best job.
But to support Rogers point of view, the Positive-Sum-Quality stage covers
presumably the largest part of a dimension. So you are right, Dan, in concluding
the 'no-loose vs win-win'-situation as not very likely to happen IMO, but even a
situation being near to this only covers a short period of any dimension.
Metaphor:
I imagine the product of all dimensions - so for the human being all those
dimensions in between the four levels - as kind of surface, which gets more
'smoothe' the more all valuebeings are similar to each other while in the same
time changing more and more from a soft and harmonic swinging to a nervous
'flickering' that leads to a situation more open to change.
This image is also to near to an exclusivly win-win-situation as you described
it above, Dan.
Thank you for giving impulse and also thanks for reading,
wish you well,
JoVo
PS.: Seems to be also a bit 'political' to discuss those points you mentioned,
Roger, isn't it? (only sudden thought)
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 - 16:00:51 BST