Hi Jonathan, Roger and LS
JONATHAN:
> Horse, possibilities may be infinite, but they are not unlimited. It's
> not true to say that anything can happen, because some things can't.
> Potential can only be recognised if you can see how it can be realised.
> The analogy to DQ works for me!
Fair enough. I don't have a major problem with DQ as potential and if it works for
you then that's good enough.
> I disagree that there is no objective reason for complex behaviour.
> Complex behaviour is a direct consequence of the natural behaviour of
> the components. What's true though, is that there is no causative force
> (in the Newtonian sense) operating at the component level to drive the
> change.
But that's my point. From an objective (valueless) point of view there is no reason
why simple systems should become more complex and once they attain greater
complexity there is still no objective reason why they should become still more
complex. That they do is obvious and observable but all this says is that they do,
_NOT_ why they do. When you remove value from a system (or deny it's objective
presence) you are left with no satisfactory reason for the tendency towards
complexity. This works at all levels. Additionally, If complex behaviour is a direct
consequence of the natural behaviour of the components then please explain the
cause of the natural behaviour. This sounds to me like ontology - no offense
meant.
> New behaviours appear "as if by magic" but are really inevitable. It's
> not nature doing strange things. It's us failing to anticipate the
> complex behaviour.
Which is another way of saying that the categorisation of nature, in objective
terms, is wrong. That they ARE inevitable is obvious from observation. WHY they
are inevitable is not so obvious. Science provides us with a description of natural
phenomena but not an adequate explanation.
> I always say that biological evolution is inevitable.
> Given everything we know, evolution would be the expected behaviour of
> biological populations over time. The onus is on dissenters to prove
> that it DIDN'T happen.
But we can only say that evolution is inevitable or expected over time because we
have already observed this to be so with a high degree of probability. Surely this
is an a posteriori or empirical process which, once again, does not provide a
(qualitative) reason as to WHY the process was initiated in the first place. Once
the process is observed we can provide 'laws' that describe the mechanics of the
process or use prior knowledge to extrapolate future behaviour.
> Horse, your "Contributive DQ" sounds like SQ to me. Specifically, it is
> that part of SQ which guides how DQ unfolds (the channel down the
> mountainside).
Possibly 'Contributive DQ' is somewhere between SQ and DQ as we have talked
about it in the past. Where Pirsig talks of the DQ he seems to sometimes refer to
it as prior to 'conscious' knowledge and at other times to 'conscious' realization
dependent on the context. But it would seem reasonable that if there is a
difference from a contextual point of view then there they may be a difference in
terms of manifestation. A speculative point perhaps but one worth considering?
ROGER:
In general I agree with the majority of your post but would disagree on a couple of
points.
First point:
> <<<<"Science is a process not of deriving predictions from observations, but
> of finding explanations">>>>>
Science excels at description and is able to explain in a limited sense but where
it, quite spectacularly, fails to explain is why events and process should occur in
the first place. Reasoning from first principles seems to be given a special (lack
of) meaning. Please don't misinterpret my cynical attitude toward science as
most of my academic background is science based and in general I am
supportive of much of science and technology but to quote John Dewey:
"Having emancipated myself with some difficulty from the traditional orthodox
theology, I am not going to shackle myself with another"
and this includes the MoQ.
Second point:
> My fourth point deals with Diana's mention of the aesthetic side of the MOQ,
> and that focusing on just one side perpetuates the myth. Perhaps, but I also
> fear that MOQ will never be accepted if it appears too aesthetic or
> mystical.......Zen , Quality and Morality are terms that are dismissed as
> subjective new age crap by much of our intended audience. Are we prepared to
> remove these terms?
If Quality and Morality are to be "dismissed as subjective new age crap by much
of our intended audience" then our intended audience can collectively screw
itself. Personally, I am not prepared to remove these terms as they are the basis
of the MoQ. We would be left with Mo?
The major point of the MoQ is to unite all areas of human endeavour and produce
a unified perspective. Zen also has a place in this - a point worth mentioning here
is a perfect example of a Zen koan that Platt produced showing the inadequacy of
logical reasoning. If the Big Bang created space and time, what went BANG? This
has had me chuckling for a couple of days - thanks Platt.
None of this is to say that the MoQ is the last word in descriptions of reality but
it's a lot better than any other system I know of at the moment.
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