Hi All
Apologies for not getting this reply written sooner.
Q1) Define DQ as succinctly as possible
[Horse]
> Q1)I'm happy with any of the following as they essentially say the same thing:
> Change (Horse)
> Potential (Jonathan)
> How things become (Magnus)>>>>>>
[Roger]
> Combined they make sense. But they don't obviously say the same thing.......
I like that and I think you're right. They seem to make a lot more
sense when combined than when considered separately.
[Roger]
> 1a)Quality is value. Everything is defined and created by value.
> 1b)Dynamic Quality is pure experience. Pure experience is
> preconceptual value change or interaction.
I agree with (1a) but (1b) doesn't seem right - ar at least it doesn't
seem complete. This, to me, is more a description of the QE. I think
that the QE is one form or aspect of DQ but not the whole of it.
Q2) Define the QE, in terms of your preceding definition if possible
[Horse]
> Q2) A collision of Static Value(s)
[Roger]
> And what are static values? And by the way, I thought the QE made the
> patterns, not the pattern collision made the QE?
Sorry, I should have said static patterns of value (SPoV's). As far as I
can see it is an iterative (recursive?) process involving DQ/SQ
interaction. QE's create static patterns of value which then form
relationships (interactions) which give rise to further QE's. I suppose I
would say that static patterns of value are the fuel for the QE/DQ
engine.
[Roger]
> 2)The quality event is an experience event collapsing potential
> preconceptual quality into definite conceptualized patterns.
So what is it that is experienced or experiences. I don't mean this in
a Subject/Object way as I think we're using the terminology in a
particular way which is so far undefined. Experience and
conceptualization have different meanings, dependent on the context.
In an inorganic context experience does not mean the same thing as
experience in an intellectual context, although I think they are related
by the overall context in which they occur.
Q3) Define sq, in terms of the above two def's if possible
[Horse]
> Q3)What's left after DQ has done its stuff
[Roger]
> WHAT IS LEFT?
Static patterns of value. The QE and/or the
change/potential/becoming create static patterns of Value which form
relationships and interact, giving rise to further change ......
[Roger]
> 3)Static quality is patterned, conceptualized experience.
I think we need to be careful of the word "conceptualize" due to the
intellectual connotations involved - though we can probably get away
with "experience".
Static patterns of value are experienced by other static patterns of
value in one huge, seething network of Value/Quality. The base level
is the Inorganic level. Inorganic PoV's interact, combine, experience
in increasing complex ways. At some point the interactions and
experience give rise to biological Patterns of alue, distinct but
dependent on the lower level.
Q4) Explain how the levels emerge in the above terms
[Horse]
> Q4) An iterative process (fueled by DQ?) of increasing complexity and
> interaction between all levels
[Roger]
> OK
[Roger]
> 4)As patterns became more complex, they gain the ability to be
> reactive to experience. Inorganic patterns emerge into aware
> biological patterns which value pattern continuance and extension.
> The social level emerges as patterns share and coordinate
> experience. The intellectual level emerges as societies learn to
> "pattern the patterns."
Sounds good to me!
Q5) Explain what "all is evolving toward" in your preceding terms
[Horse]
> Q5) I agree with Magnus. As far as I can see to provide a teleogical
> explanation is to posit some form of guiding intelligence (or similar).
> The best or most appropriate static value latches by a process of
> survival of the most appropriate. There is no goal - there is only
> what may be.
[Roger]
> So there is no "evolving to DQ?" Is this the "Que Sera Sera" MOQ? :-)
Personally I prefer the "Shit Happens" paradigm :-/
But seriously, I think that the idea that DQ seeks freedom _from_ the
confines of SQ which results in change in potential of SPoV's has
less of the implication that there is some goal towards which all is
evolving, like what is the goal. If we can't define it then it seems odd
to say that we understand this is what we are evolving towards.
[Roger]
> 5)Patterns evolve toward enhanced complexity; hence, enhanced freedom of
> experience and enhanced experience.
But patterns of value don't seek enhanced complexity - they become
more complex through constant change - there is no choice in
certain respects. The different levels have increasingly greater
freedom to change because the more evolved something is the
greater the complexity, almost by definition. A higher level is an
escape from the confines and restrictions of the lower level(s). But as
far as I can see this is not a goal but a natural progression.
Horse
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