To: Wim
From: Rog
Re: THE Q:
What do the patterns of higher quality have that those of
destruction, decay and disorder don't?
ROG (previously wrote)
"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."
WIM:
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.)
ROG:
Yes. Forgive the sloppiness of the question. It was in SOM-speak and was
never well-thought-out. Actually, John just grabbed it out of a post and
suggested it be THE Q.
WIM:
But patterns of value don't "have Quality". They "are Quality",
patterned value. Quality "has patterns" or "is patterned".
ROG:
I again agree.
WIM:
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.
ROG:
Pirsig GROSSLY oversimplified evolution in Lila. You are right that
evolution is usually not progressive. 99.9% of all species have run into the
dead end of extinction, and many of the others appear to have "stalled". But
it can be progressive. Every species alive today is an example of one that
has avoided destruction's dead end . Yes, mankind too will most likely end
in extinction, a destination which you are clearly (both above and below)
associating with low or no quality, and therefore one to be avoided.
Thus THE Q with a human twist: How can mankind avoid destroying the earth
and/or himself? What are the patterns/paths leading to our own success and
what are the patterns more likely to lead to dead ends?
WIM:
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).
[snip]
...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: [snip]
ROG:
Go on....
WIM:
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.
ROG:
Bingo! I think this is the MOQ answer. (Which Marco really said, but in a
very different way)
WIM:
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).
ROG:
Mankind's versatility is a type of 'K' evolution, where the knowledge and
experience and flexibility is invested in each individual. Cockroaches are
an example of what is known as 'R' evolutionary pattern, where survival and
flexibility come from sheer reproductive numbers and sheer variations on the
themes of intrinsic patterns within myriads of extrinsic environments
(SOM-speak). I would argue that bacteria are even more successful at the
latter strategy than cockroaches.
BUT, despite the huge difference in approaches, you are right that they both
do have something in common, stability and versatility. I also agree with
your interpretations on democracy and science.
WIM:
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 ... 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.
ROG:
Again I agree 100%. I really think the above is a variation on John's theme.
It was on compassion and harmony across larger patterns. I too see value in
starting with good intentions, though with full awareness on immediate
reality as a learning process.
I completely agree with your conclusions. The 'pattern to success' balances
stability and versatility in harmony within bigger and bigger patterns.
Rog
PS -- Thanks for continuing to work on the "4 Theses" thread. Your responses
are always highly valued. I also agree we need to ignore postings of
negative value. There are members in this forum that are throwing out the
pearls-of-wisdom that they overheard their 4th period liberal arts teacher
say (the one with the cool goatee and pony tail). When questioned though,
they find they are both unprepared to support these statements, and unable to
admit as much. (Though in some cases they ARE the 4th period liberal arts
teacher)
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