I'm a little tired so forgive me this is the busiest time of the year around
here.
----- Original Message -----
From: RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
>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.
Higher quality is better because "being better" = "higher Quality". They
are exact
synonymns.
>At the contrary, an intellectual level made of few simple concepts should
grant us more room to be dynamic and creative.
Amen!
>Let me share a similar concept that I read in two different books (most
>recently one by Daniel Dennett). The insight was to envision a library of
>every possible 500 page book that could be written. Every conceivable
pattern
>of spaces and characters. Somewhere in this library would be the book of
>nothing, somewhere else the book of 500 pages of Z's, somewhere would be
Moby
>Dick, surrounded by uncountable numbers of variations on Moby Dick where
only
>a few characters per page differed. Every book ever written, and ever to be
>written is contained somewhere in this library (longer books can be
>considered combinations of multiple 500 page books, and shorter books have
>blank pages/spaces at the end.) The problem is that there are more books in
>this library than there are atoms in the universe, and most (almost all) of
>these books are just plain jibberish. But every good idea, every great
>sonnett, every metaphysical breakthrough ever written and ever to be
written
>and every solution to every problem past present and future is somewhere to
>be found in this nearly infinite library.
Point one about this hypothetical library. If the library was being
examined 5,000 years
ago all the books "in English" would be jibberish at the time and yet if
they were examined
right now they would be perfectly understandable while the "Sanskrit" books
would be
nearly impossible to decipher. 5,000 years in the future from now English
may be a lost
language.
Point two: the paper books would be understandable as encrypted forms of
stored information.
However in a culture with no books (let's just say pre-1940 Papua-New Guinea
highlands) then the
ENTIRE library would be jibberish - just decorations of black on white. Who
knows if in 5,000
years we will be using written words on paper.
In your hypothetical library, SQ is rampant, as it is in the real world all
around us. DQ however
has plenty of breathing room even, and remains just as mysterious and
elusive as it is in real life.
The history book of the Peloponnesian war is mildly interesting to us now
but would be of
supreme importance to poor Thucydides scribbing on his tablets.
>My point is that if we equate a Quality pattern with a book in our library,
>we further elaborate upon your metaphor. Patterns OF VALUE are indeed rare
>in this library, but this library is so vast that the problem isnt that we
>have "less empty space for new pieces" (or in Dennett's metaphor "less
books
>available with quality patterns." The true problem isn't exhausting
patterns,
>it is finding the good ones.
And which ones are the "good ones" changes as mentioned above. :)
>The solution is that the books aren't stored
>randomly. The best place to look for the perfect copy of Romeo and Juliett
is
>n those rooms with near variations to the book/play. As such, a major
value
>of patterns of quality/books is in their ability to lead us to other high
>quality books. And some books even include all the good ideas of how to
>navigate in the library, but many more suggest wrong ways!
>
>Long way of agreeing with you that the creation of patterns of quality does
>not appreciably exhaust our supply of patterns, and it facilitates further
>creation by leading us to new patterns that could only be found after
>discovering earlier patterns. Creativity leads to patterns (sq) that allow
us
>to reach spaces previously beyond our reach. Patterns (or at least some
>patterns -- those of the greatest value) lead not to less creativity and
>complexity, but to more creativity and complexity.
Not to be crude but this to me brings the image of a triumphant explanation
after a long search
for the origin of feces. SQ is the lifeless excrement that DQ produces and
then leaves
behind in its wake. It might be warm but that doesn't mean its alive. We
are little dung beetles
who build our homes from that scat but knowing it comes from DQ's leavings
is no reason to
celebrate it.
Patterns are interesting and stable and they seem to be the prey hunted by
the "academic" wing of
this discussion list, but they are lifeless. Change is inevitable and
Martin Luther King gained little
from a thorough knowledge of existing patterns and a lot from knowing how to
pursue the DQ that
led to his successes.
--Soj
sorry for the MLK reference but I was just remixing some of his speeches and
so he's on my mind :)
Whoops just saw there's more to your post sir.
>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!
The "Big Picture" is ouroborous, or the Tao if you prefer. DQ -> SQ -> DQ.
I hate to
sound pedantic but draw a circle on a piece of paper and that's really all
the explanation
you need for anything, although very broad I might add :)
>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.
Whether "birthing" new (and higher quality) SQ or destroying SQ, DQ remains
dynamic
and is one and the same. Despite the fact that SQ follows DQ I think it is
imperative to
say here that SQ is not "under" or "less Quality than" or in any way lesser
than DQ! SQ has
the same eternity and imperviousness to destruction that DQ does!
I'm really quite underschooled so forgive my elementary logic here, but as
long as Stephen
Hawkins' "time arrow" points in the same direction, SQ patterns CANNOT be
prevented from
being formed from DQ. A human being may eat food but that food cannot
disappear, only be
processed into different forms (or excremented untouched). I don't think
your "room" needs
any help or needs "solving" at all. SQ "rooms" are impervious to damage or
destruction except
from DQ (and vice versa).
I honestly have to unleash one last gripe here and that SQ rooms are already
stifling under the
groaning weight of the various cataloging forms and methods to which it is
subjected by people
on this list and the world in general. What else is the fundamentalist
Islam currently in our news
but one group's cataloging method of SQ vying against anothers? The Quality
in the MoQ and the
reason I find it to be OF value is because it puts a handle on Change
itself. I don't turn to the MoQ
to know what to do when I show up for work every day, but all of a sudden it
is a very valuable tool
in knowing what to do when I get fired unexpectedly.
Even when there was a "universal" (sorry for the jab at Catholics) view that
God created the world
and that's that, there was never a consensus on the details, i.e. a final
and agreed upon cataloging
method and system for the SQ rooms of medieval europe. It was just as
dynamic and changing as it
is now, and the endless pagan rituals and touches that still survive attest
to this.
--Soj
apologies to the length of this post, like I said it's been a long day and
it's now 0157 hours as I write
this.
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 - 16:01:42 BST