Hey there!
On 6/8/99 at 12:17 PM -0500, Clark wrote:
> Our "Many Truths" will gradually become fewer as our level of
> understanding increases and we begin to move toward a common
> understanding.
This sentence raises some questions/doubts.
Shouldn't the "many truths" operate like the hypothesis example in ZMM?
Don't they increase the more complex the system becomes? And, referring to
Godel, shouldn't there always be unknown truths that escape each and every
static pattern of value?
Or am I looking at wrong models? On the other hand, if there are "holes" in
areas of static knowledge (Heisenberg, Godel), won't there always be room
for DQ and therefore "new" discovered truths in the form of new static
patterns of value which evolve out of DQ?
I think this idea that the "truths" will become fewer relies on the
unstated premise that Dynamic Quality is finite. I don't believe DQ to be
finite, though...although I didn't look for quotes or substantiation.
If Dynamic Quality is the "ultimate good," if it is what we are progressing
towards, as the ranking of the static levels indicates, and Dynamic Quality
is always unknown, how will we ever exhaust it or reach it?
I think that if you accept that Dynamic Quality is the ultimate good and
that DQ is infinite, then you have to accept that the ultimate good is
neither knowable nor achievable. We will only ever know relative good, the
good between levels as they evolve. To quote Clark quoting Pirsig again
[Lila P. 99 (hardback-2nd page ch 8)]:
"But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then
it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one
doesn't seek the absolute "Truth." One seeks instead the highest quality
intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is
any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as
useful until something better comes along."
I would go further and say that:
a) Dynamic Quality is infinite
b) Dynamic Quality (aka ultimate reality, absolute truth, absolute good,)
cannot be known or defined
c) there will be an infinite number of truths (SPoVs generated by DQ)
d) not all truths in any given SPoV can be known (Godel, Heisenberg, etc)
That out of the way, I believe that we, humans, can come to a common
understanding on the thrust of lower levels of static patterns (killing
innocent people is bad, etc), just not everything about every level that
will ever exist...
Or am I mixed up?
Thanks!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________
Mark Brooks <mark@epiphanous.org> <http://www.epiphanous.org/>
How do you know who wrote this? <http://www.epiphanous.org/mark/pgp/>
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:05 BST