Dear Rog,
You wrote 10/12 13:25 -0500:
"I agree that we can't know for sure which changes are
improvements until new ideas are tried, however, I do suspect
that there are patterns to success. In other words, we can't be
sure where DQ is, but we can be pretty sure where it is very
unlikely to be found. The solution isn't entirely random imo.
...
What do the patterns of higher quality have that those of
destruction, decay and disorder don't?"
At first your question struck me as simply the wrong question,
reminding me of "Lila" ch. 11: "It isn't Lila that has quality;
it's Quality that has Lila." As I have been trying to convince
Platt (6/11 22:27 +0100, 25/11 17:02 +0100 and 27/11 23:23
+0100): patterns of value should not be treated as objects that
"have quality", described in adjectives, on pain of reconverting
the MoQ into SOM again. Quality is the object/subject (or the
relation between them or something undefinable making objects and
subjects defunct). The possibility to describe experience (not
only as patterns in that Quality but) also as "objects" and
"subjects" can better be described in the adjective "stable" to
be added to the noun we use for the pattern. Any pattern of
values is to be understood as "good as a noun". (In MoQish I
should not understand myself as a more or less "good person", as
a subject with more or less quality, but as a more or less
"stable person", a pattern of values that is reproducing itself
more or less consistently and for a longer period and/or that is
more or less resistant to change.)
The logical answer, that would be absolutely (tautologically)
true, is: "they have more Quality".
But patterns of value don't "have Quality". They "are Quality",
patterned value. Quality "has patterns" or "is patterned".
Patterns of value evolve. The (historical) fact that a pattern
supersedes or develops "on top of" earlier patterns is an
argument for, but not a proof of, their being closer to
meta-quality/Dynamic Quality and/of their being "more/higher
Quality" and/of their meeting better any criterion for
"goodness". Why should evolution be (always) progressive? Maybe
humanity (with all its social and intellectual patterns of value)
is just a dead-end destined to blow the earth to pieces with
atomic bombs or future even more destructive weapons?
An "evolutionary morality/ethics", like Pirsig's one, does accept
this type of argument as proof however.
Further evolved patterns are still ... patterned Quality and the
difference between further evolved and less evolved patterns is
just ... Quality (positive or -in case of a dead-end- negative).
(And if there would not be a difference in Quality, we would not
be able to experience the difference...)
Tautological answers may be very (even absolutely) true. They are
not very satisfactory. They reek of creating our own consistent
world of words that excludes part of Reality (in SOMish) or
suppress part of experience (in MoQish). They reek of ...
confining ourselves to the intellectual level.
Non-tautological answers replace "Quality" with (an)other
value(s) (in SOMish described in adjectives, in MoQish described
in "patterns to [evolutionary] success"). They are only
non-tautological because they replace the "true" answer (Quality)
with something less (some of the aspects/elements/parts of
Quality). They are never complete, even if they may be more
satisfactory...
The bracketed example in my first paragraph after quoting you
already implied a partial answer to what a pattern
of higher quality does have more than those of lower quality: the
ability to reproduce itself more or less consistently and for a
longer period and/or to be more or less resistant to change. This
answer is ONLY implied however, when we presuppose that the
historical fact that a pattern reproduces and resists is DUE TO
an inherent ABILITY. It is in essence a SOMish answer: it
attributes a quality (ability) to a subject.
Pirsig gives a comparable answer in "Lila" ch. 11: "increase in
power to control hostile forces or an increase in versatility or
both". (Pirsig doesn't consistently write MoQish, mind you!)
Another type of (partial) answer replaces "Quality" with two or
more values and states The Essential to be "balancing" or
"optimally combining" of them. Both Marco's answer (new static
solutions AND new problems to solve, new pieces for the puzzle
AND room for new puzzles) and John's answer (applying -as ever-
Wilber: span AND width) are of this type.
The most complete answer of this type would be an answer that
corresponds with the "first division" you want to make in
Quality: static and dynamic. So a high quality pattern (patterned
high quality? a further evolved pattern!) optimally combines sq
and DQ. It is at the same time very stable AND very versatile.
The biological pattern of values called homo sapiens may not have
proved yet to be very stable (compared to other species that are
around for many more millions of years), but it definitely IS
more versatile than any other species (including the cockroach,
which makes a good second, but would never survive on the moon).
Democracy with universal suffrage may not yet be around for much
more than a century (very short compared with inheritable
monarchy), but it definitely IS able to accommodate more
different morals (including those of fascism, communism and
probably some types of islamism, even non-violent anarchism if
its adherents are not a majority) than any previous way to rule
(hold together) a group of people. Science (worshipping objective
Truth) may be around far shorter than most varieties of religion,
but is definitely IS able to generate and support more different
technologies and life-styles than previous intellectual patterns
of value with "do God's will", "humor the spirits of the
ancestors" or "appease the forces of nature" rather than "find
Truth" as ultimate value.
A third type of (partial) answer is exemplified by the Bard:
"acting in harmony with the whole and with
minimal selfish desire". A typical answer of this type denies
success/outcome as a proof of quality. A further evolved pattern
has better intentions (in SOMish: supposing it to be a subject,
even an anthropomorphic one that acts-on-intentions, and
supposing a subjective morality with criteria to measure how
"good" these intentions are), is compassionate (aware of others),
tunes in to something bigger than itself.
This type of answer accords best with my Quaker morality in which
"following divine guidance" is what counts as highest value
regardless of outcome (which I leave to God, if
anthropomorphised, or which I trust to be good if I only check
that the "divine" that guides me is that which connects rather
than divides everyone and everything). In other words: a further
evolved pattern is a pattern that more and more consciously fits
itself into a bigger pattern.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
P.S. I am still preparing a follow-up to our discussion in the
"Four theses" thread. I hope you don't regret having written
"Feel free to take your time." ...
On the other hand: everyone taking their time would be the
solution of our MD/MF-problem. The problem obviously is not one
of the MF-list being too static. The problem is contributors on
the MD-list being not enough disciplined. If we would only share
new insights (or new combinations of old insights) and would just
ignore postings we disagree with or find no value in (instead of
trying to convince each other) ... we wouldn't be scaring off
(altogether or to a disappointing MF-list) those without enough
time or energy to read lots of irrelevant stuff to find the gems.
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