Dear MD Group:
I am lagging seriously behind and must make a collective sweep of
things that I would have liked to comment.
KILIAN.
Welcome to the discussion. I don't have any remarks to your opening
post, it was just good (including the weekend partying), but please
look into my Platt entry.
PLATT.
You wrote:
> I don't agree with the implication that "intellect is a creation of level
> 3." Intellect is a creation of Dynamic Quality. Nor do I agree that "it
> is the interaction between patterns of value which gives rise to an
> emergent level." It is Dynamic Quality that gives rise to an emergent
> level.
and:
> Kilian suggests that perhaps the creation of computer viruses and
> the Internet comprising a level 5 could be attributed to a level 4
> response to DQ. But Pirsig makes it clear that levels don't respond to
> DQ. Only individuals do
These are fine distinctions which require quite an act to keep in
balance. You are right, Intellect is not the creation of
Society - that's DQ's workings - but Pirsig makes it clear that all
levels grew from the lower one. Life builds on Matter... etc
upwards. A particular society comprise of individuals, but an
individual is also social value. When Matter reigned there were no
individual life, yet something responded to DQ (or protested the laws
of nature) which resulted in Life and so on upwards. Only at the
Social level can we speak of individuals, but from here only
individuals respond to DQ!
Regarding computer virus I think that Kilian, Platt and I agree: a
response to DQ (protest against Intellect's restraints) will have to
continue at the (human) individual plane.
DIANA.
You wrote:
> I've been trying to find a solution to the
> discontinuity-of-matter-at-the-quantum-level platypus. Pirsig's
> statement that matter is stable inorganic patterns of value might
> be correct MoQ but I think we need a little more explanation than that to
> keep the physicists happy. However obviously this is a rather
> far-reaching question and possibly a trifle over-ambitious at this
> stage;)
"Discontinuity of matter" . That each and every matter phenomenon has
a wave and a particle nature. For instance light - which usually is
regarded as an electromagnetic wave - is also a photon. My solution
to the riddle is merely a reiteration of Pirsig's statement, but it
rests on the very starting point of the Q idea: the PATTERN notion.
The various levels are patterns of value, including matter which is
not "substance" but InPoV. Patterns has no continuity or
discontinuity to worry about, a punch card, a knitting pattern, zeros
& ones in a software program are only discontinuous seen from a SO
pov.
HORSE.
You wrote:
> As well as producing a practical MORAL philosophy. This has not been
> discussed at all well in the past and is something that will take a great deal of
> thought, after all the book we seem to discuss most is called Lila - An Inquiry into
> Morals. The MoQ has been touted as pretty much a Theory of Everything (I'm not
> being sarcastic) but in line with what you say above, we have to find a way of
> forming some sort of concensus AND publishing it.
This is one tall assignment and much like the one that "Theo Schramm"
(alias Struan Helliger) asked for in his ethics message. The MOQ is
far too general for ...am I to leave my spouse or go shoplifting...
sort of questions, it solves the most fundamental issues there are,
but ..what is good and what is not good do we need to ask..etc. I
never consult the MOQ in my day to day existence and yet it hovers in
the background and colours it all. You CAN apply the MOQ, but it is
an exhausting business.
GLOVE.
I have studied your triangle thought experiment (a little) and/but
won't comment on it prematurely not to make a fool of myself, but
perhaps it is a (fullerist) mathematical model of my own SOTAQI (which
also explains Diana's riddle in a more complex way). I will try to
compare the two - soon.
TO THE GROUP (are we no longer LS?).
For more than a year now we have struggled to understand the Quality
idea, and we have agreed on the obvious that the MOQ is "wider" than
the SOM; the former contains the latter (my own contribution to the
containment problem is the SOTAQI). After that realization, to ask for
a SO-explanation of MOQ's explanation of SOM's riddles is quite an
"about turn". MOQ HAS its version of the the nature of consciousness,
the quantum phenomena, artificial intelligence, namely that these are
platypi created from believing that SO is as things really are ..a
metaphysics.
The "nature of the self" was one interesting issue. I am not so sure
about it but it is intimately related to the ones listed here. I
suggest it as a candidate for next month's PROGRAM.
Thanks for reading this.
Bodvar
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