Hello everyone
Hi Ken
Thank you for your excellent comments.
>Glove and all interested 99 percenters,
> Previous message: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 answers:
> Glove, While I realize that this example is only one of many, many
>possible similar situations I think that like arguments could be advanced
>for the others.
Glove: I agree.
Ken:
> If we allow that all of the atoms or moietys thereof are available in the
>general environment it does not follow that protein molecules will result.
Glove: Are we allowed to say atoms are available in the general environment
from a Metaphysics of Quality point of view? We "know" that protein
molecules are a result of "something" yet it seems to me that recent quantum
research has indicated atoms are not "real" in the sense we normally think
of as real. Rather than starting with atoms as a foundation and building a
reality, we should start with reality and ask ourselves: what pre-conditions
arise to allow the sense of "real" atoms?
Pirsig seems to have approached this problem both ways. With his four static
levels, he uses evolutionary forces to explain the moral progression within
the levels, yet he also states that the highest quality static pattern of
value is intellect, and that the intellect comes "before the external
world". From that point of view, it would seem that the intellect level is
the beginning and not the inorganic level. Would you agree?
Ken:
>It is more probable that the environment of muscle or other protein
>containing tissue of living organisms is the only place that will provide
>the proper conditions to allow the correct folding of protein. This
>environment is passed on from one generation to the next through egg and
>sperm, or division or whatever the reproductive system is. This may well be
>the, or one of the, restrictions whereby species differentiation is
>maintained.
Glove:
If I read you correctly here, you are saying that the genetic code is of
primary importance from the standpoint of evolution, which it would seem a
very high value indeed from a static quality point of view. However, I feel
that the Metaphysics of Quality allows for a higher value of importance,
that of Dynamic Quality, which cannot be identified within the genetic code.
Ken:
> I still maintain that protein generation is driven by the impetus of
>DQacting on QEs to produce Static Quality muscle tissue in the proper
>environment and that this is one of the ways that life is differentiated
>from other life forms as well as from non-life.
Glove: we agree.
>
>Original message:
>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 Answers:
> I cannot get the quotes right but paraphrasing I believe that Pirsig says
>that all we can experience is value. Substance is the result of value. By
>that I think he means that everything that we believe to be true is
>conditioned. It is only true according to the state of our understanding of
>the universe and that anything that we believe presently is subject to
>change with a deeper understanding. I think that is what he means when he
>says that gravity is a belief. He simply means that our current
>understanding and experience of gravity is based on the values we now hold
>as a result of our current level of understanding and could be subject to
>change with a deeper understanding. He is not saying that our experience of
>gravity will change, merely that our understanding of it is subject to
>change. In a sense Pirsig is also saying, along with Bohr, that we are
>suspended in language, or preferably, understanding. I think that this is
>the basis of his "Many Truths" idea. He is saying that since we do not have
>a complete understanding of the workings of the universe then all of our
>currently held values are conditional. At the moment we cannot be "certain"
>about anything. We are being driven by DQ continually toward a deeper
>understanding. Whether we will ever reach full understanding is doubtful.
>As I believe, all of our "truths" are conditional but DQ is supplying the
>force to drive us toward further "truths". We can discuss with confidence
>our understanding of the universal "truths" with the proviso that we must
>also be aware that these "truths" are conditional.Ken:
Glove: beautifully put! Once again we agree.
Ken:
>
>Original Message:
>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 writes:
> Wouldn't we have to answer the question "if all is good, what is it
>better than?"
>
>Ken answers:
> If we look back on our understanding of the development of the universe
>we can form a set of values that gives us a picture of our origins.
>Obviously that process will look good to us because it produced us. I
>suppose we could say that this process is better than one that would have
>not produced us but then we wouldn't know the difference. All is good.
>There is no better. Ken
Glove:
I see we are very close in our thinking. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
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