Diana:
Re: Our Next Program
Several members have suggested we should take on the issue of defining dynamic
quality. This is of course fraught with peril due to the inherent
contradictions between "definition" and "dynamic." However, I am all for
giving it a shot, or for your related suggestion of better defining the split
between static and dynamic.
Re:Consciousness And The Nature Of Self
I concur that Pirsig only provides a starting point for the nature of self and
consciousness and quantum reality. But it is a formidable foundation. Saving
the fun quantum stuff for later, I can't help but jump into the consciousness
issue. And since it deals with the mind/matter platypus I might even be
considered "on program".
Per the esteemed Mr. P.," Man is the pattern." And he states (p178) that the
rules and laws of higher levels " are not derivable from the rules and laws of
substance." My take on this is that consciousness is an emergent quality of
the dynamic interaction between static patterns (components). These would
include those patterns commonly defined as both in and "out" of the organism's
brain. Consciousness is an emergent higher level that can't be traced back to
any of the lower level component parts. It is like trying to trace back to
the "movement" quality of a motorcycle.....it can't be found in the parts, the
gas, the rider or the road. It emerges from their dynamic interaction.
In "Consciousness Explained" , Daniel C. Dennett attempts to do what the title
implies. However, he is hopelessly mired in conventional SOM. He finally, but
awkwardly, succeeds by pointing out the absurdities in conventional models.
This book begs for the conceptual clarity of the MOQ. He concludes that the
conscious self is a "center of narrative gravity", or what we would term a
pattern of values. He knows under his conceptual metaphysics that this
conscious self isn't real (it isn't a thing), but he calls it a "glorious
fiction" ( an intellectual pattern?) and argues that it does exist.
Students of Dennett, please be merciful in your critique of my summary.
Like I said, I found the book to be awkward to wade through. But combining
this with Pirsig's metaphysical foundation does begin to explain
consciousness.
On a related tangent,I just read an article in Scientific American on some new
revelations on the split-brain nature of man. Per Michael Gazzaniga, Director
of the Center For Cognitive Neuroscience, humans are unique in the differences
between the left and right hemispheres. In other animals, other than slight
tendencies in monkeys, the mental capacities are not lateralized by
hemisphere.
Gazzaniga suggests that as we evolved the capacity for language and reason,
that we had" a fierce battle for cortical space." To make room for the new
capacities, the brain had to give up something to make room for the new.
Lateralization was its salvation. It gave up some functional skills on the
left half to make room for language and the "interpretive function". In fact,
he shows how mice and other animals test as smarter than the left side of our
brain on certain perceptual mental skills.
Considering the model of dynamic interaction and how it results in unexpected,
emergent, higher-level patterns, I wonder if this lateralization didn't result
in a net increase in dynamic quality within our brains. We not only gained
language and reason, we also gained the increased dynamic of these two
hemispheres interacting together. Studies on people with damage to one side
of the brain or the other , or with damage to the bridge between the two
sides, show bizarre intellectual patterns. Could the combined interactions of
the new reason function, the new ability to use language, and the new
interplay between the hemispheres have exponentially increased our Dynamic
Ability? Could this explain the suddenness of man's emergence? Could it
explain the differences in consciousness between us and our nearest
evolutionary relatives? ( I am refering to chimps, not those still following
SOM! ) This qualifies more as "just wondering", than it does even as a trial
ballon. Food for thought.
To wrap up my overly verbose posting, I would like to share two related issues
on the nature of these hemispheres. The left side looks for order and reason
and patterns in everything. However, without the right side it frequently
overgeneralizes to the point of absurdity. It makes mistakes and even
fabricates patterns where none exists. Lila Squaders, lets keep this in
mind as we progress.
As for the right side, it lives in the moment of the present. This sounds
very dynamic. But it also sounds like my dog ,Sable. Which leads me to a haiku
by Issa:
The puppy that knows not
that autumn has come,
is a Buddha
Be Good!
Roger Parker
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