ROGER RESPONDS TO INPUT ON THE EXTENSION/CRITIQUE
OF THE MOQ
Thanks to all those that responded. Have some fun and accompany me on a
mental journey into the unknown. The road back is well lit!
DavidB wrote:
>>>>>Wish I knew where this quote was located. I'd like to see it in context.
In any case, the meaning seems clear enough. Isn't he asking the reader
to discover material that's lying dormant in the culture? Isn't he
asking us to get excited about other thoughts and thinkers that can
color and shape the MOQ?........ Even if you really had a better model for the
basic structure of the MOQ, this wouldn't be the place for it and it would
probably be something other than the MOQ. It would be the MOR, the Metaphysics
of
Roger.>>>>>>>
The quote was Pirsig's word of encouragement to the Lila Squad. He was
challenging us to discover the 99% of the MOQ that has yet to be realized.
The reason he did not join the squad was partially to avoid suppressing the
dynamic advancement of ideas. See Horse's March 10th post for details.
Despite Pirsig's encouragements to move forward, The Squad decided wisely to
start by establishing a common agreement on MOQ concepts. However, a year and
a half later, we are still looking backward. Have we all become
philosophologists? Have we?
In advancing the MOQ, we need to be careful to delineate the core concepts
from any new twists or discoveries. However, when we get an MOR (Metaphysics
of Roger), we have gone too far. It will be time for a new Web site. My
proposals were meant to extend and fix weaknesses in the MOQ. Or, at the
least, to explore these perceived flaws and gain new insights into how they
are not weaknesses. Discussion is good. Below are my concerns:
A) Dynamic quality has been overextended. The "source of all things," "direct
experience," "the unmeasured phenomenal object," and "that which all is
evolving to"is overly broad. Combining the first and last definition, we have
" the source of all things which things evolve to." What? Do not get me wrong,
I agree with all the concepts. The weakness is to give these all these
concepts the same term without clarification. In my opinion, his " evolving
toward " definition was the fundamental overextension. This concept needs
clarity.
B) Quality, value, morality, direct experience, awareness, dynamic quality and
the quality event are confusing. Let's use one term throughout and clarify
that the other terms are either synonyms or special cases of the agreed on
term.
C) The only other fundamental difference in my model was that I tried to
explain the emergence of the levels. Complexity theory and the MOQ are
totally complementary. Together they explain reality. This add-on can easily
be deleted.
On this topic, Struan wrote:
>>>>
It would seem that everything is evolving to higher complexity/quality except
for our explanations
which evolve to greater simplicity/quality. The fact that we allow our
explanations to be an
exception to the rule is fascinating, wouldn't you agree?>>>>>
Horse answered it well. Let me add one other brilliant feature of complexity
theory. It shows that complex, chaotic interactions tend to result in simple
emergent features. The intellectual level is complexity's poster child.
Inorganic chemical reactions; forming DNA combinations; forming billions of
synapses or nodes; interacting with the environment, biology, language and
culture; interacting with billions of separate but connected nodes or brains
Yet from this complexity emerges the simplicity of E=MC squared. Struan's
comment highlights the strength of complexity theory. I absolutely guarantee
any one unfamiliar with complexity that reads this theory will gain insight
into the MOQ's brilliance . Complexity complements the MOQ better than
peanut butter complements jelly. See my bio in the forum for suggested reading
materials.
Back to David's concerns, to show that this is really the MOQ, I have taken my
original model and reinserted the familiar terms and dropped any reference to
complexity:
1) DQ is Quality
2) There can be patterns of dynamic quality. This is static quality. (Note
that I am not stating dynamic quality is patterned, it isn't) Static quality
is patterns of quality.
3) There are four distinct categories of static quality. Each level emerges
from its underlying level. Each level has more freedom and higher dynamic
quality than that from which it emerges.
4) Patterns of value are evolving toward enhanced dynamic freedom, or higher
quality.
5) Quality is All.
Please let me know what, if anything, above differs from the MOQ. Also,
please let me know if you agree with my three concerns with the MOQ.
Roger
Below is my original "new terminology" version of the MOQ which started this
discussion. It was written firmly in pencil.
1) Experience is Quality
2) Quality/experience is all
3) Experience creates patterns (InorgPOV's). These are patterns of
experience.
4) Experience causes the patterns to become more complex (BPOV's)
5) Pattern complexity leads to higher quality experience (biological
experience)
6) Higher quality experience leads to even more complex patterns (S and I
POV's)
7) This leads to higher quality experience.....(social and intellectual
experience)
8) Pattern complexity is defined as a pattern which is more dynamic, which has
more freedom, more options, more potential. (It does not necessarily mean more
complicated)
9) Pattern complexity is quality
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST