Hi All
As Diana pointed out in her last post there seems to be a basic division in the
squad between an aesthetic and a quantum interpretation of the MoQ. There are
also the earlier positions of Magnus and Jonathan and the relationship of Quality
and purpose that Roger (RISKYBIZ) raises which I'd like to comment on briefly
before making a start on the points Diana raises. If I raise points already brought
up by others I apologise in advance.
Magnus:
> The answer to the question,
> - How can anything become?
Hopefuly I haven't misinterpreted your post when I assume that the answer to the
question "How can anything become?" is DQ. If this is the case then it still
doesn't say a lot ABOUT how DQ relates to how things become, just that they
do. If we're trying to form some sort of explanation to those unfamiliar with the
MoQ when they ask about DQ then this is a bit on the cryptic side. I'm not trying
to pick an argument here (honest!) just trying to get a bit more elaboration.
Jonathan:
> DQ = potential
I can see the reasoning here (and from your other posts) but the objection I have
here is that 'potential' implies the totality of the possible future states which is,
for all intents and purposes, infinite. As I see it, DQ relates to the actual not to
the possible, in the same way that the state space of potential mutations is not
the same as the state space of actual mutations in evolutionary terms. All that is
possible is not the same as that which is probable or that which occurs.
Apologies if I have misinterpreted your postings.
Roger:
I'm not going to try for the prize as I think that Purpose (in the sense that I think
you mean) and DQ are not necessarily compatible. Purpose, in terms of value,
generally means to possess a function, or set of functions - which may be
designed or assumed. I would equate this with instrumental value which is the
great sticking point in objectivism. Instrumental value comes in (at least) two
forms. In the first case it is assigned by the subject to the object and as such is
immediately classified as subjective by definition. In the second it is the value of
something with respect to the utility it provides. You could also say that
Instrumental value is _recognised_ by the subject in the object but this comes
down to the same thing. DQ, although related to the subject/object mindset in
this way, is not confined by subjective purpose/value. It is INTRINSIC value to the
core - value for its own sake. I said some time back that DQ is exploration. I don't
think that this is either a wide enough nor inclusive enough definition, although as
with both Magnus' and Jonathan's definition it does avoid becoming stuck in the
instrumental value mire. So DQ does not, in my opinion, have purpose in terms of
moving towards some form of goal as purpose/goal in this sense is SQ. It is
probably more appropriate to assume that the opposite is true and that DQ (as
Pirsig says) is an escape FROM SQ and not TOWARD any goal.
This brings me on to Diana's points in recent posts. From an objectivist point of
view, value is seen in a very narrow and limited form and that is mainly dismissed
as subjectivism. The big problem is that although value may be accepted in the
sense of being assigned to the object it cannot be measured in the object (in an
objectivist sense - i.e. I am not aware of the existence of a value meter) and is
therefore not part of the object. If it is not part of the object then by default it is
considered as residing in the subject and is thus subjective.
PLATT:
> I suggest we challenge objectivists to prove to
> the world why this is so.
DIANA:
> Their answer is that it is a subjective thing and consequently cannot be
> proven. It's the wrong answer, but that's their answer nonetheless.
However, this does not, I believe, take account of inference and reduction.
Evidence of existence by inference is an acceptable part of science - many
examples are available (some sub-atomic particles, black holes, dark matter?). If
something is not directly observable but exerts an influence on its surroundings
then observation of the 'caused' phenomena is sufficient to provide objective
evidence for existence of the unobservable 'cause'.
One very useful place to start looking for DQ (or Dynamic Value), in the SOM
objective sense, is in the area of research into complexity - the Santa Fe Institute
for Complex Studies is a good place to start. Why do simple systems evolve into
complex systems? There is no _objective_ reason why this should occur and yet
the evidence in support of these phenomena is available in abundance. Part of the
explanation as to why there is no objective reason is due to the structures and
methodology within science - reductionism.
Study of phenomena within science tends to be reductionist which has, as a
consequence, the removal of interaction between elements of systems (artificial
intelligence is a classic example). DQ seems to have an awful lot to do with
interaction and connectedness which are the foundations of complexity.
The phrase"The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" is anathema to many
(though not all) within science as it implies that when all the constituents of a
system are removed, something else remains. That something could be dynamic
quality - the relationships between the constituent parts of any system which
enable evolution and change. This also goes to the core of the mystic
interpretation of "the interconnectedness of all things". Where phenomena are
considered in isolation they appear static and are easier to study. When they are
considered holistically, dynamic relationships appear - as if by magic. Many
areas of study are now tending towards a more holistic approach - cosmology,
economics, bio-chemistry, genetics etc. It is only a matter of time before the
'subjective' fields of study - art, history, anthropology etc. are considered in the
same way. The subject/object division IS starting to dissolve as systems come to
be studied in terms of constituents AND their relationships. This also extends to
relationships between systems (Eg Ecosystems and economic systems).
Various terms are used but what they generally boil down to are value
relationships - the term Dynamic relationships is used extensively.
Where Diana states:
"Yes but it's not the bright sparks I'm worried about. It's the unwashed
masses - they tend not to have flashes of intuitive beauty as often as
some of us."
this is not a problem of/for science but one of education of the masses in
science. Public awareness (and more importantly understanding) of scientific
research lags woefully behind current research in science - hands up who read 'A
Brief History of Time' (all the way through that is), now keep your hand up if you
understood it!!!
I think that Pirsig's MoQ has come at an absolutely crucial time. Dynamic Quality
is starting to be recognised (although not by that name) as an essential part of
objectivity but that the SOM has such an enormous momentum it will take some
time until is is acceptable to talk of Value (Dynamic and Static) in 'objective' AND
'subjective' terms and that Value co-exists in both worlds simultaneously as one
and the same thing.
On a closing note I think it is possible that DQ is being argued over so much
because, unlike SQ, there has never been any attempt to divide DQ. There seems
to be an assumption that there is only one angle to DQ, which I think is incorrect.
I know this isn't going to make me Mr Popular but I would suggest that an initial
division would be into Contributive and Formative DQ. The former is the
recognition of the new whilst the latter is responsible for its creation.
Contributive DQ in an aesthetic (subjective) sense is the relationship between the
observer and the observed, the hearer and the heard etc.. Contributive DQ in the
scientific (objective) sense is the relationship between the constituents of a
system, the constituted system and other systems.
They are one and the same thing.
Formative DQ (aesthetic/subjective) is what creates works of art. Formative DQ
(science/objective) is what creates 'objective' reality.
They are also one and the same thing.
Anyway, that's my contribution for the moment.
BCNU
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
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 - 16:02:35 BST