To John
>From Rog
JOHN B:
Whew! This is harder than I thought. My points on destruction were more at
the level that just because something is destructive, does not make it
'bad'. Therefore destruction is part of the ongoing processes of nature, and
is not inherently evil. Your response, as I read it, is that quality, or
good, is anti-entropic, and that the value in destructive events is their
preparation for a higher level of structure to emerge. You do concede that
perhaps this is a matter of perspective when you said: "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." So I
take it we can agree that something can be destructive without necessarily
being 'bad'.
ROG:
Could you give an example of destruction that is good? (Noting that if it
is good because of its property of clearing away for new, better
CONSTRUCTION or reconstruction, that I will suggest that it is the
subsequent construction that is essential to its goodness.)
JB:
But your main point is, I think, wrong.
"The world is indeed fundamentally entropic -- it has a tendency toward
disorder. Despite this, quality patterns not only merge, they also last and
they not only resist decay, they actually leverage it into a continuous
cycle of reorganization."
ROG:
But that wasn't ever my main point. It was just an argument for the defense
against my point. I was trying to argue the other side a bit to feel a
void. My main point is that destruction, decay and such are bad and harmony
across span and depth is good (with lotsa caveats). And what is "scientism"
?
JB:
IMHO this is scientism. It would be taken as relatively non controversial by
most people in our culture, because it mirrors what we have been taught is
the scientific understanding of the world. It is an idea, and it has not
been very successful in helping us understand how quality patterns can
emerge from disorder. In fact this paradox is evident in your words; entropy
is fundamental, despite this, quality patterns emerge and become continuous.
Well, which is fundamental?
ROG:
As best I understand the situation, it is because order is possible even
with the second law of thermodynamics. It is possible for quarks to bond
(through gluon exchange), and for electrons to bind to protons (photon
exchange). And for atoms to bind together and for molecules to congeal from
gravitational attraction and for chemicals to form catalytic loops, etc etc.
By FUNDAMENTAL, I mean that entropy is an original state that is the default
state in absence of order. However, I certainly cannot deny that the
universe has an inherent tendency toward order either. It is static and
dynamic. Yin and yang. Up and down
JB:
I have picked up on Wilber's rewrite of
Whitehead, which suggests, for example, that a world where 'consciousness'
resides is not describable in terms of atomic theory.
Rather, we must rewrite our account of reality by starting with the higher
order processes and events, and seeing how far down the levels these extend.
Prehension was Whitehead's way of saying that even at the level of sub
atomic particles, there is more than just billiard balls doing their thing,
ruled by entropy.
ROG:
I haven't been discussing consciousness in terms of atomic theory. I have
been saying that destruction is bad. And my belief in harmony and order and
creativity certainly don't look at all like one of billiard balls ruled by
entropy.
JB:
Pirsig tries to have his cake and eat it too by using science, especially
evolution, as a prop for his metaphysics, while fundamentally pointing to
something other than science as the 'ground' of everything. Indeed, he is
critiquing the whole value free concept of science that dominates our world
by saying Quality (good) is more real than the concepts of science. He tries
to find space for his insights in quantum physics, but this is a risky
enterprise, as he himself pointed out so clearly in ZMM where he showed that
there is no end to the making of theories in science. I think there is a
necessary choice here, however well disguised, between the currently
fashionable understanding of science as to fundamental physical reality, and
a value centred view such as Pirsig's.
ROG:
You are arguing your scientism charge, rather than with the view I have been
expressing. For the record, I think Pirsig and science and other models can
coexist nicely. They are like pictures in a museum....
JB:
Your understanding that "Disorder is of lower quality than order" is also
fundamentally flawed, I think, and this is where I feel the strength of
Platt's Nazi challenge. Nazis were pretty strong on order. Order can be of
high or low quality, in my view. I have several times pointed to the end of
Ch 22 in Lila, where Pirsig promotes what I see as a fascist social order
that is the antipathy of the Indian values that shaped modern America. This
is the result of promoting order above other values. Order is fundamentally
static. While we agree that neither dynamic nor static quality is an
adequate basis for a metaphysics, Pirsig lost the plot here by allowing the
collective a higher value than the individual.
ROG:
You over-simplify my arguments here (you do much better below). I have
tried to carefully write in every post that it is the COMBINATION of harmony
across span and depth along with the constant drive toward creativity,
change and exploration that defines high quality. I have never espoused
pure order
As for your individual vs the collective, both you (above at least) and
Platt again over-simplify my views. In preaching harmony across depth, I am
valuing both levels. Further, I have repeatedly written that it is through
win/win quality between individuals that the higher level begins to best
emerge. [And the whole Indian values significantly affecting America is a
crock of doodoo]
JB:
WIM said "A further evolved pattern has better intentions ... is
compassionate (aware of others), tunes in to something bigger than itself."
You were correct in your suggestion that this is close to my feel for the
topic. You picked up on harmany and creativity "By harmony, I mean
establishing as large of a pattern as possible of mutual support -- where
you add value to your environment as it adds value to you. It therefore
becomes self flourishing. By creativity, I mean establishing a process of
continuously searching for novel ways to be more harmonious with an even
larger network. Harmony and creativity -- aka compassion and passion -- is
the path to quality."
If we go to the fundamental issue of what is important (has value) in the
world, then I argue that compassion and harmony and creativity come from a
higher level of value than entropy and order. They are thus more fundamental
to the ground of the universe than are the latter, despite the views of
scientism, which I equate with "a wrong functioning of thought".
ROG:
I have no qualms with your position of starting high and working down. I DO
suspect a greater connectivity between entropy and order and harmony and
creativity and destruction. I guess we could discuss this thread, but it
should be under a new heading.
But, what about the question... Do you see destruction and disorder as high
quality?
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 - 16:01:46 BST