there is a lot of 'male', single context thinking in this thread... you
seem to be dissapearing into 'ga-ga' land. Fundamentalism. Platonism and
the 'safety' of traditions. The seeking of 'clarity', of 'perfect'
identification and so a STATIC position. An archetypal position that
favours reproduction through likemindedness, asexual/androjyne
processes.
>From the local context, the 'raw' individual Quality is subjective and
so, according to the Q=M concept, is morality. Likemindedness favours
forming groups, loose associations, and in doing so generalising quality
and so morality. Introduce DIFFERENCE and things start to change,
quality, and so morality, becomes 'fuzzy'. Likeminded groups fracture
and some 'digest' the difference, incorporate it, and so difference
becomes sameness. Other groups fight difference and so difference
emerges WITHIN and BETWEEN groups.
These differences WITHIN/BETWEEN groups will change reproduction from
asexual/androjyne to sexual, from the pure but eventually 'sterile'
seeking/maintaining of purity to the increase in diversity through
mixing. This leads to even more fracturing for some but then these
sub-groups in turn meet others and so more mixing, there is FLOW here,
DYNAMICS; oscillations.
The world of dynamics lacks quantitative precision, we have to work with
qualitative precision through pattern matching and the exageration of
boundaries etc; this is the world of playing with HARMONICS. This world
it is all 'too fast' since its emphasis is on CHANGE and so we try and
slow it down by creating our own little unchanging worlds.
Harmonics analysis comes with 'good patterns' and 'bad patterns'; the
aesethically pleasing is linked to particular patterns which seem to
emerge from the middle of 'too little'/'too much' and refining the
identifications leads to the blurring of the boundaries, the
distinctions become 'mixed' and out of that comes different expressions
of quality. It is noteworthy that that part of our brain most sensitive
to harmonics processing is also that part of our brain sensitive to
qualitative precision and the subjective and the dynamic; relational
space processing.
The world of dynamics is also tied to metaphors, metonomy and analogy.
In this world quality does not EQUAL morality; they are not the 'same'
as interpreted in a purist, single context perspective. At the local
level a 'law' as in 'thou shalt not..' is an expression of a 'preferred
choice' that becomes a quality and that BECOMES 'morality'. There is a
metaphor here where underlying species-wide survival patterns, developed
over billions of years of heuristics are identified and given a
teleological emphasis but this emphasis is not 'real' but more the
better form or EASIER form of description until something else comes
along. This teleological element seems to emerge when we humans move
from a reactive emphasis in dealing with reality to a proactive emphasis
which includes asking 'what is BEHIND that?". We start to create maps.
This leads to the 'sense' of Morality being the 'refined' metaphor to
describe quality which is in itself tied to the 'yin/yang' of harmonics
processing; 'musical' laws. The subjectivity of this is in the
expressions of music on the planet at this time - MANY. Morality is tied
to 'law' and as such is tied to relational space (typal) more so than
object space (archetypal). Thus morality HAS TO CHANGE and in doing so
forms groups where the older see the younger as 'immoral' (or too moral?
:-)) The moment you impose morality so you 'kill' it in that you have
made it STATIC.
Interestingly, if you take a 'chaotic' pattern created by a particular
cellular automata and apply 'purist' rules to it, i.e. filter the output
by only allowing for 'pure' elements to pass, so can emerge PURE form.
(e.g. see http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/stegan.html ), but they are
STATIC (but then they have to be!). Since our methods of analysis
include the oscillation of the brain as it attempts to identify, so
applying a negative filter to the dynamics can lead to the encountering
of 'pure' forms 'in here' but these are DEAD and can be associated with
the METHOD of analysis. Note that the METHOD is biased to PURE emphasis
and so favours an archetypal emphasis.
In the process of development, any 'new' lifeform born into a context
will, over generations, develop stronger and stronger feedback loops
with that context until one 'day' a 'map' of the context is internalised
such that the lifeform moves from reactive states to proactive states.
The map enables prediction and so HABITUATION. This process leads to the
total intergration of the lifeform with the LOCAL context, so much so
that the SAMENESS emphasis emerges where there is no perceived unknown
danger to the lifeform, text and context become 'one'. This is STATIC at
the non-local level and most lifeforms 'under' ours are dying out since
they lack DYNAMICS at the species level of being able to change
adaptions in 'realtime' to avoid extinction.
Included in the above mentioned feedback loops will be
heuristically-created 'good' patterns and 'bad' patterns, which, once
part of the internalised MAP become proactive goals to reach/avoid and
as such are interpreted as being PART of the CONTEXT and can be
interpreted as having existed PRIOR to the emergence of the lifeform.
Not necessarily so.
The distinction of static/dynamic is a dichotomy and for all dichotomies
the 'best' position to be in is at the '/' - IOW the middle that is full
of potentials and rich choices in behaviour; go too static and you
become rigid, a very identifiable form but also 'dead'. Go too dynamic
and you gain lots of 'culture' with an emphasis in change, but in doing
so you lose identity, the 'core' sense of 'self' in that identity is
derived from your context.
Thus a 'moral' human is one intergrated with the local context, has
become 'cultured' but the price is a loss in adaptability skills; change
the context and that human is VERY much 'out of place'. The intergration
in fact reflects an unconscious 'shift' to a STATIC position, where the
DYNAMICS are so tied to the LOCAL context that the human & context have
been encapsulated and become 'archetypal'.
Developmentally the 'middle' position is the 'best', a position that is
both static and dynamic in that there is always oscillations at work as
we reactively and proactively work with the context and even change
contexts but at the same time can be 'still' if required.
Thus 'stillness' and the archetypal is not a goal, it is a potential
behaviour possibly required for a specific time period in a particular
context. Thus 'stillness' is rich in quality as well as having none,
being 'dead'. Just as randomness and the miraculous share the same space
where the qualitative calls the tune mapping the 'thing' to the context,
so the relationship of stillness to context is the same and it is the
intergration with the context that determines the degree of qualitative
assessment; the longer you stay in the context proactively the higher
the qualitative assessment (even if seen from outside as
illusion/delusion)
Thus the assertion that "[if] Quality is the primary reality of the
world then that means morality is also the primary reality of the world"
is taken 'out of context', it is a generalisation made within an
intergrated context and so is 'inevitable' and yet very LOCAL. The
statement itself reflects archetypal thinking at work; a more 1:1
pattern where, as outlined above there seems to be a levels difference
between the terms when you get down to precision in that Quality and
Morality are not equal, Morality is a sense that allows for the
'refinement' of quality through the application of 'rules', of
'patterns', of 'harmonics'. Morality is thus the particularisation of
quality, morality gives quality a 'pointedness' about it. Morality acts
to concentrate, to distill, to condense, approximations into precision,
into 'correctness', but in doing so returns morality to being local; we
are back where we started but with a little more 'refinement'.
This oscillating process, that in turn reflects hierarchic development
where the raw is refined and that in turn becomes the raw for the next
development, shows we are beyond single context thinking.
best,
Chris.
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 - 16:00:59 BST