Hello everyone
Hi Ken. Thank you for the very perceptive thoughts. I will try and address
them as best non-scientific I can.
Ken:
>Glove and all other 99 percenters,
> I have been gnawing my thumb and trying to stay out of this for a week or
>so and I can hold out no longer.
> I think that the point at which everyone is stopped is on the definition
>of Dynamic Quality.
Glove: Agreed.
Ken:
> My take on Dynamic Quality is that it is the energy and the conditions
>that were initially set up at the birth of the universe. It is the store of
>energy plus the presumed 75/25 split between Hydrogen and Helium that
>resulted from the "Big Bang", plus the fundamental laws of the universe
>such as gravity and time. As such DQ set the possibilities and supplied the
>energy that resulted in all else. From this beginning the process was
>established which resulted in the starry universe which resulted in a
>continually increasing range of possibilities which resulted in our current
>concept of the universe.
Glove:
I can find nothing to argue with here Ken. I would like to say that this is
certainly a high quality static point of view.
Ken:
>DQ is the force that drives the universe toward
>greater possibility as well as toward greater entropy. I tend to believe
>that when Pirsig says that DQ is unknowable and indefinable he just means
>that we cannot know what its origins were. The operation of DQ seems clear
>to me.
Glove: This is also exactly what Niels Bohr said about his framework of
complementarity.
Ken:
> Driven by DQ every possibility was tried. Some of these results ended in
>a dead end when no further possibilities were available. Some of these
>results allowed interactions with the outputs from other QE and SQ
>interactions which generated further possibilities. In this way DQ creates
>and destroys. All the while driving the universe toward a state of greater
>complexity.
Glove: This is where I begin having a few problems. Perhaps Jonathan Marder
could better explain it than I as I am sure he's touched upon the subject in
the past; the problem of protein folding. There is perhaps an infinite
number of ways that a protein can fold yet it seems to "know" which fold is
the correct way without having to try each and every possible permutation.
>From what little I understand of the problem, it seems that the environment
has a direct influence on the folding of the protein; it is constrained into
folding in just such a way as to be beneficial to its purpose.
If this is so, then your argument that Dynamic Quality drives static quality
to try every possibility may be flawed. It might be better to say that
Dynamic Quality constrains static quality to its purpose?
Ken:
> Quality Events result from DQ acting on the range of possibilities
>available.
> Static Quality results from the interaction of two or more compatible QEs
>which produce a latched level of complexity which is made available for
>further universal growth in complexity through further QEs driven by DQ.
Glove: It is my understanding that we each of us exist in a Quality Event
that we call our life. There is only one Quality Event which expands and
gives the impression of increasing complexity. Static latching results when
we, through the course of the Quality Event of our lives, find it possible
to make agreements and communicate those agreements with each other in an
unambiguous fashion.
Ken:
>During the inorganic phase observation consisted of DQ driven QEs which
>produced SQ latches. Sentience was not present or necessary for the
>development of further complexity in the universe. Again, Sentience is not
>necessary for observation to occur. Observation simply means that further
>possibilities exist.
Glove: I do not exactly disagree with you here, nor can I agree. By the
nature of the way we perceive the Quality Event of our lives, I find it
impossible to state with certainty what happened before I became aware of
reality, or what will happen after that awareness ceases to be and the "I"
that I call me goes "back" to wherever it came from, Dynamic Quality if you
will. Yes, we can communicate unambiguously about the past and the future
when I was and will no longer be "here" but that suspends us in language, as
Bohr once wrote.
Ken:
> The levels emerged as DQ drove QEs to explore alll possibilities.
>Whether these results were a foregone conclusion is a good question. A
>similar question is: If the universe started over again with the same set
>of initial conditions would it wind up at the exact same spot that we
>occupy now. I don't know the answer to that. It would seem to make sense
>that it would. The reason that everything looks good to us as we look back
>on our understanding of the universe is because that universe has operated
>to produce us. It all looks good to us because it has led to us. I imagine
>that if we could ask every element and every life form in the universe if
>the development of the universe was all good they would all say yes for
>similar reasons.
Glove: Wouldn't we have to answer the question "if all is good, what is it
better than?"
Ken:
> As Pirsig says, the entire universe, including us, is a collection of
>Dharmas. We are perched on a pinnacle of Value because we have resulted
>from a process driven by Dynamic Quality.
> When sentience entered the universe the operation of DQ changed. We
>humans now have the capability of influencing the operation of Dynamic
>Quality in our corner of the universe. We have the ability to alter the
>progression of life forms on Earth. Whether this is good or bad I don't
>know. It would seem to be bad but if we relinquished the ability to
>manipulate the biosphere we would have to drastically alter our
>relationship to the biosphere. Which way is ultimately better for humanity
>I don't know.
Glove: I am not sure we can say that when sentience entered the universe,
the operation of Dynamic Quality changed. Perhaps the operation of static
quality changed, in fact, I would say there could be little doubt about that
although at the same time we cannot know for certain.
Ken:
> I tend to think that the levels are an artifact advanced by Pirsig to
>make explanation easier. We get into trouble when we try to make the
>workings of DQ, QE, and SQ fit neatly into each level with no interaction.
> I will leave you with a question.
> What happens when DQ is all used up. What happens when we reach a state
>of complete entropy? Will it start all over again?
Glove: I find that this question is coming from a static quality point of
view and so is not applicable to Dynamic Quality. What we think of as "used
up" is not anything that can be pinned on Dynamic Quality.
> Got to go work outside. I still have lots of questions and opinions. Ken
Thanks for the comments Ken, and I will look forward to your reply.
Best wishes,
glove
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