Hi Rog, Jonathan, Erin, Platt, Gerhard and others living in the middle between the edge of chaos and the Caribbean Sea,
(I love this *edge of chaos* thing, thank you all for this point).
ROG:
What do the patterns of higher quality have that those of destruction, decay
and disorder don't? That is to me the fundamental question arising out of the
MOQ. I have lots of thoughts, but none conclusive yet. What do you guys
think?
MARCO
hope you let me jump in, just to add my two cents... I guess there is no answer to Rog's question. It's like when Pirsig says that writing a metaphysics is a degenerate activity. Quality is undefinable but we have to define it.
Equally, even if it is IMO impossible to state WHY higher Quality is better, I want to try a (partial) answer. Let me offer a metaphorical view about the evolution of the intellectual level (and I guess it is valid for every level). The puzzle.
One quibble from the MOQ is that we are "evolving towards DQ" while "creating SQ from DQ". It seems a bit strange: creating a greater amount of SQ should correspond to a more complicated and less creative world. If one of the purposes of the intellectual level is to create the Big Picture of universe, the more the pieces of the puzzle, the less is the empty space for new pieces.
Actually it is seems obvious that all these new concepts, ideas, philosphies etc etc make our intellectual world much more hard to be managed. And if we spend all our time to manage the old static ideas, we can't be dynamic and build new concepts. At the contrary, an intellectual level made of few simple concepts should grant us more room to be dynamic and creative.
Well, not at all. When the intellectual level was made (roughly speaking) of a single simple idea <<all things happen according to a God will>>, *everything* was explained. The picture was complete. No need to create new pieces and pursue DQ. You see, few simple concepts and at the same time a very static situation. Then, the *bad guy* comes and shows he is able to predict an eclipse. A God between us? hmm... perhaps we have to find a better explanation. We have a *new piece* for the picture: <<It is possible to predict an eclipse>>. New questions arise: How? When? ....
What is great here is that we have a possible double outcome: new pieces for the puzzle AND new room. New answers AND new questions. Simoultaneously... or, better, in loop. The problem is that it's not easy to insert the new piece in the picture. Sometimes we have not the skill. Sometimes the former picture does not allow new pieces and it becomes necessary to destroy it (partly) to make new room (it happened, for example, with the Copernican revolution). Here comes the temptation to destroy everything: it happens when we are not able to put a new piece of SQ in the picture that others depicted before us.
So, what do the patterns of higher quality have that those of destruction, decay and disorder don't? Destruction creates room, but does not solve the problem. Low quality static patterns solve the problem, but fill the room. Static patterns of higher Quality solve the problem AND create new room for new future static patterns. That's why I fear those claiming they know the Truth: they think they have completed the Big Picture!
In conclusion, how do we evolve towards DQ? Well, making a good job when we create and place new single pieces of the puzzle. We have to solve the current problem leaving intact the room (or, even better, creating new room) for new static patterns. Not easy.
Ciao,
Marco
p.s.
Isn't it the problem we have in MF? Good static concepts, misplaced. No room for new concepts. We just need a bit of order....
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:41 BST