Hello Kilian, Roger, diana and Squad!
Kilian Betlach wrote:
>>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?
Approaching Quality is essentially an intuitive process. The problem we are
having with delineating the MOQ is the same problem we encounter anytime we
attempt to describe such a process. The act of description becomes
counter-intuitive and, by attempting to frame our experience in language, we
lose what we try to define.
The way we perceive Quality and the way it affects us determines how we
approach that milkcow, or any of the other myriad tasks we perform each day,
much the same as a truly committed Christian (or Moslem, etc.) is readily
apparent from his actions. By his/her acts, he/she is known. One who has
experienced Quality will be generally approach life from a Quality
perspective, and it will be apparent to an observer.
The MOQ should not be mistaken for Quality itself, just as the Bible should
not be mistaken for God lest we end up with a Church of Quality as moribund
as the conventional Christian church. If you strip the Bible of its
historical/mythical - indeed, of its anthropomorphic - trappings you will
find, I believe, a primer on the nature of God. God's attributes are very
close to those of Quality. Mayhap the Tao and God and Quality are merely
different culturally derived descriptions of the same principle.
I'm with Roger Parker on this one. It's possibly time to define - or at
least describe the attributes of - DQ.
Kilian Betlach wrote:
> 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
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