To: John and all
From: Rog
Re: THE Q:
What do the patterns of higher quality have that those of
destruction, decay and disorder don't?
JOHN:
I wonder did you see my response to Davor in which I said:
"I don't have time to explore all your examples, some of which I agree with,
and some which I find unclear. However, it seems to me that food only
becomes nourishing as we de-structure it, one man's chaos is another's
dynamism, and if decay did not occur we would both run out of nutrients and
also have a severe problem with where to put the corpses. So I agree."
ROG:
Yea, I meant to respond to it, but then neglected to because I was hoping my
response was pretty much covered in what I said to Davor. (in other words I
was bein' lazy) But let me respond explicitly now, and see if it takes us any
new directions....
As I said to someone, the question does imply that we live in an entropic
world where disorder is the norm, or the background out of which higher
Quality arises. Disorder is of lower quality than order, with a broad
spectrum of degrees of order based upon the scope of the pattern and its
versatility. Each step up the levels in the MOQ adds depth, span and
versatility to the patterns (aka dynamicness aka creativity aka freedom aka
edge of chaos). Agreed?
My response to Davor on situations like your food de-structuring argument was
that the value in digestion isn't in creating more disorder, it is in
preparing the food for re-ordering. Digestion speeds what occurs naturally
(entropy) to hasten the re-ordering process. A pattern which only decayed
and destroyed its environment and itself would be very, very low quality. It
would be entropy itself.
I see no inconsistency between the Q and "one man's chaos is another's
dynamism". Higher quality patterns are indeed better at deriving Quality out
of a wider range of experience. They can create order out of disorder.
Disorder is low quality, patterns of value are higher quality, and dynamic,
versatile, creative, free patterns are higher still.
Your final comment that "if decay did not occur we would both run out of
nutrients and also have a severe problem with where to put the corpses" again
runs into my argument that the quality of recycling isn't in its ability to
cause disorder, it is to leverage the disordering process to gain higher
patterns of quality. Recycling's quality is in its ability to bring more
order out of entropy, not in its destructiveness.
In a world without disorder and decay and destruction, there would be NO
corpses, and you would not lose energy or need a constant supply of
nutrients. Of course such a world is impossible. In our world, entropy is
the background out of which quality rises (through a self-supporting,
by-ones-own-bootstrap process -- see my two posts on the Q), and even failure
is recycled back into higher patterns of quality.
I don't know, at a broad enough perspective perhaps you guys are right. Even
disorder itself is somehow harnessed into quality. Perhaps only in a world
of death, destruction and disorder can so much quality be created. Perhaps
Voltaire is right, and this is the best of all possible worlds.
JOHN:
To me the core of the discussion should not be allowed to drift too far in
the direction it seems to be progressing, though what is being said is a
valid response to the question. It just seems to be getting away from the
core of it.
ROG:
Could you help direct it back on course? I am asking because I am not sure
what "on course" looks like to you, and would value learning it.
Rog
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