To Ryan The Great (with book recommendations!!!!)
THE Q:
"What do the patterns of higher quality have that those of destruction,
decay and disorder don't?"
ROG (previously wrote):
You then go on to mention that "it is a Quality event when the cells of the
human body decay each seven years to make room for newer cells." It is? Is
it the decay and the bold, compassionate sacrifice of these little suckers
that is of quality? Or is it the regenerativeness?
The same argument goes for "revitalizing the environment" when dead,
destroyed, temporarily disordered creatures are recycled into patterns of
higher quality. The decaying isn't the quality event, the ensuing
reorganization is. Right?
RYAN (RTG):
It seems to me that the "decaying" and the "ensuing reorganization" are
different phases of a continuous cycle, or more specifically, the decaying IS
reorganization. The difference seems to be that the agents of "decay" are
microbes while the agents of the "ensuing reorganization" are more complex
multi-cellular organisms. Why should one organism's method of reorganization
be determined to have more or less quality than that of another?
ROG:
I am fine with the circular argument. Marco made the same point the other
day using the 'make room for new tea' analogy. I am trying to get people to
engage along the issue that destruction and disorder are NOT what we mean by
quality. Everyone rightly points out various processes where virtuous cycles
have formed that somehow reconstruct destruction, but these members are, to
some extent, opting out of the tough part of the question. The world is
indeed fundamentally entropic -- it has a tendency toward disorder. Despite
this, quality patterns not only emerge, they also last and they not only
resist decay, they actually leverage it into a continuous cycle of
reorganization.
And I wasn't arguing whether some patterns of reorganization were of more or
less quality than others, just that organization/reorganization are indeed
patterns of quality.
RTG:
The primary difference between the two types of organisms
seems to be one of complexity. Does more complexity necessarily indicate
higher quality? The microbe may well answer, "No," because it's pattern has
not had to undergo as many changes/corrections along the way; the microbe has
been happily doing its thing all along.
ROG:
Ok, I will now enter your argument on complexity. The answer is that the
complex multicellular organism is more moral, according to the MOQ, than a
single celled organism. First, a multicellular creature involves billions
of cells rather than one (granted this point is my adaptation of the MOQ, as
it never makes a utilitarian -- greatest good for largest number --
argument). Secondly, and more importantly, the MOQ values versatility,
freedom and dynamicness. These are characteristics of complex, specialized
organisms. For the record though, the MOST moral solution isn't multi vs
single, it is to find the way for both to thrive. The cooperative
arrangements of bacteria in our guts is just one of many breakthroughs for
such synergistic quality.
Rog
PS -- My suggestion is actually to be leery of most of the western philosophy
stuff. With MOQ glasses, it shows up as a 3000 year folly of the
subject/object split. If I was to recommend one western philosopher, it would
be William James. Buy an anthology that includes his radical empiricism in
it. He is tough to read, but once you "get it" you will see the MOQ in a new
light.
I would recommend the following books (on a 5 star system):
The Moral Sense-- by Wilson (on empirical studies of morality)*****
Non Zero - by Wright (great on social patterns of quality and social
evolution)*****
Darwins Dangerous Idea -- by Dennett (on biological and social evolution and
quality)*****
Popper Selections (on Karl Popper's writings on philosophy and scientific
patterns of quality)****
The Wealth and Poverty of Nations -- by Landes (Social quality)****
Capitalism, Democracy and Ralphs Grocery -- by Mueller (socal quality)***
The Federalist Papers -- by Madison and Hamilton (social quality)***
Out of Control -- by Kelly (on complexity)***
The Web of Life -- by Capra (on biological and environmental value)*****
Collapse of Chaos -- by Cohen and Stewart (Complexity and biology and lots
more!) *****
Flow -- by Csikszentmihalyi (A practical and empirically supported guide on
living in the moment) ***
Anything by Tom Robbins (fiction)
All of the above books, when seen through the eyes of the MOQ, help fill
between the lines that Pirsig draws. I recommend every fan of the MOQ read
the 4 and 5 star selections.
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