To the group:
I have just recently joined this organization and this is my first
posting. From reading those few e-mails I have received thus far, it
appears I am comparably deficient in expierence and education to the
rest of the group. If my thoughts, therefore, appear simplistic or
naive, I apologize and please have patience -- I've only recently begun
my attempt to interact with Quality. (I'd also offer the excuse that I'm
writing from my dorm room and the drunken relvary outside is both
detrimental and destructive to thought processes).
I wanted to first look at the structure of the static patterns of
Quality in order to see how they related to the possible evolution of a
fifth level. Platt wrote:
"Since the Internet and computer viruses are both creations of level
4, they cannot surpass level 4. So far as I know, the rule of GIGO
still holds in computerland."
The problem I see with this is that Pirisig wrote that a higher static
pattern of evolution *originates* from a lower one, (LILA pg 179) the
catalyst of such a reaction being DQ: out of non-life came life, out of
chaotic life came social organization... I'm sure you can all see this
pattern. Why is it therefore impossible that a L5 could be partially
dependant, at least in origin, on a L4 creation that arose as a response
to DQ? This is not to say that I agree that computer viruses are a
manifestation of a fifth level, I don't. But continuing with this line
of thought, wouldn't a computer that was a true manifestation of
artificial inteligence, able to replicate itself and function
idependantly, but created by humans utilizing L4, be an example of L5?
Permit me to examine this a little further: the connection of this
computer to lower patterns of SQ should not preclude its acceptance as a
L5; Inherent in biological patterns (life) there exist inorganic,
non-biological patterns, (non-life). Within a living organism, not only
does the death of cells occur, but certain inorganic substances, (the
hydrochloric acid [HCl] produced by the stomach for example) exist as an
important part of the overal biological pattern. Yet, the existence of
such does not cause the biological pattern to regress to a lower
evolutionary pattern of SQ. Further, Pirsig wrote that one of the
primary attributes of a higher pattern of SQ is the fact that it "can
often be seen to be in opposition to the lower level, dominating it,
controlling it where possible," (LILA 173) The other important feature
mentioned is the quest of a pattern of SQ to acheive the freedom from
subordiantion by a lower level. Assuming the proper amount of
malignancy on the part of my super computer -- that is, it attempts to
dominate the intellect that created it and thus acheive a sense of
autonomy -- it seems to fulfill the "requirements" to be labeled a
higher pattern of SQ: it has "originated" from a lower level as a result
of an interaction with DQ, it seeks to control that level and in doing
so, gains a certain degree of freedom from that level. All hypothetical
of course, but what do you think?
The other topic I wished to address was the recent posting by Donny, "MD
Bookworld." In it he writes extensively at the futility and
contradiction inherent in a system of philosophy that attempts to
provide answers, even transitory ones, to the questions it, by nature,
calls into existence. What he argues by writing:
"I'm trying to use this as a suggestion that question-thinking is
(philosophically) a superior alternative to (schoolish)answer-thinking.
Questions, after all, movements of thought, ARE living things --
concrete
rhythms. Answers are always-everywhere abstract projections. There's no
more *argument* here than that. Just some lateral drifting -- some
potential root expantion -- to suggest an alternative approch to the
'platipi questions.' Don't answer the stupid things; explore them,
grasp there nature, and make use of them. "
is that we (and please forgive the potential vulgarity of expression)
turn philosophy into so much mental masturbation: sure it feels good,
but after awhile nothing has been resolved and all you're left with is a
mess. To justify this, the example is used of the Easten "systems" (I
know they aren't definined as such, but I'm unable to transcend my
western terminology at the moment) of philosophy that are based largely,
according to Donny, on implementation as opposed to contemplation.
However, Eastern philosophies are *filled* with answers. These answers
are that which one must accept before beginning the process of
questioning. Yoga, for example, is nearly scientific in its precision,
especially in terms of nutrition and what to eat to acheive certain
results. Taoism has a roadmap of existence already in place: the East
(wood), South (fire), West (metal, North (water) orientation being the
vehicle or foundation upon which to begin that which it prescribes is
the *one* answer: one should fight/strive to live in balance with all of
these elements and by doing so Mu and thus everythign is acheived, (of
course "acheive" is proabably a western concept as well, but...). For
one to implement your philosophy, (i.e. express it in the way you milked
your cow)doesn't one first require some defintive "answers?" If not,
what exactly are you "expressing" in the manner in which your cow is
milked?
It is not my desire to be antagonistic, but it seems this kind of
thinking is the type of self-destructive philosophy that manifests
itself in the person who says "none of this matters because you can't
prove that you or anythign else exists. How do you know that you aren't
a figment of somebody's dream?" Donny writes that with regard to
questions we should not "answer the stupid things," rather we should
attempt to "explore them, grasp there nature, and make use of them" --
all this without attempting to undergo the "purposeful activity" that
ultimately leads to the anthema of answers. How can I utilize the
inherent questions of philosophy without undergoing a "purposeful
activity?"
With regard to his comments concerning the further futility of writing
about philosophy, Pirsig himself acknowledges in LILA that actually
recording his thoughts on MoQ was immoral as it was a lower form of
evolution devouring a higher one. And yet here we are, and nobody
condemns Pirsig for betraying his own ideals or destroying the purity of
Quality. Shouldn't it be apparent that this kind of "degeneracy" is
necessary in order to continue the evolutionary process? No, I don't
beleive the MoQ is "The One" but I do think it is "The Better" when
compared to the prevailing SOM. If Pirsig had not subordianted the
purity of his "question-thinking" to the degenarcy of his
"answer-thinking" would we have an opportunity or a means to
discover/invent/etc., that which is "The Better" when compared to MoQ?
Well, I think I'm used up and my fellow floor-mates are becoming
increasing loud.
Until next time, (hopefully I won't be shot so full of holes so as to
preclude a "next time')
Kilian
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:34 BST