From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 07:16:32 GMT
Dear Magnus, Davor, Sam, Platt, Steve & others,
I agree with you Magnus (6/11 9:21 +0100) that 'there is no DQ *in* a static
level'. I apparently was formulating too carelessly if you misunderstood
what I wrote to mean that I think there IS.
I also agree with you that different levels do NOT represent types of
things, that they DO represent types of (stable) patterns of values and that
(such) 'patterns are not things' (if we interpret 'things' as 'objects and
subjects').
I wouldn't write that 'Things are *composed* of patterns.' however.
What DID I mean with
'The levels are a way of distinguishing the different types of static
quality by their different amounts of Dynamic Quality'?
The levels represent different types of patterns of values. Static quality
is the value of maintaining these patterns, it is the value of their
stability. Dynamic Quality is the value of changing them (which is to be
distinguished from their destruction/decay/degeneration), it is the value of
their versatility/adaptability. Some patterns of values change more easily
(in the right direction) than others, BOTH because of a different balance
between stability and versatility/adaptability (which is a measure of
intra-level differences in Quality) AND because they are maintained/latched
in different ways (which determines their belonging to different 'levels').
An inorganic pattern of values (experience of 'materialishness') is
maintained/latched by unequal probability distributions in the quantum
behavior of subatomic particles.
A biological pattern of values (experience of 'life') is maintained/latched
by DNA stabilized by protein structures around it.
A social pattern of values (experience of 'culture/tradition/habit') is
maintained/latched by unconscious copying of behavior.
An intellectual pattern of values (experience of 'truth/meaning/reality') is
maintained/latched by conscious motivation/justification of actions in a way
that is acceptable to others.
So we can distinguish patterns of values by there location on a gliding
scale of more/less stability/versatility AND we can do so by the way in
which they are maintained/latched. BOTH these ways imply measuring
'receptiveness to change/DQ' in Davor's formulation (6/11 9:36 +0000). Only
the second way justifies stating that different types of patterns of values
are at different 'levels' of (receptiveness to change/)DQ. When
distinguishing patterns of values in the first way, a particular inorganic
pattern of values (e.g. the behavior of certain short-lived radioactive
chemical elements) can be more instable than a particular intellectual
pattern of values (e.g. religion). The same short-lived radioactive chemical
element that is less stable than religion is less receptive to change in the
second sense however: the speed in which that element sends out radiation
and changes in other elements is a constant that presumably hasn't changed
since the Big Bang, while religions -while staying recognizably 'religion'-
are quite different nowadays from what they were thousands or even a mere
100 years ago.
I could defend my original formulation by stating that the difference
between 'types of static quality' are determined by the differences between
types of patterns of values (and thus by the different ways of
maintaining/latching them) and that I meant with 'their different amounts of
Dynamic Quality' the different amounts of receptiveness to change/DQ of
these types of patterns of values. I'd better restate my formulation
however:
'The levels are a way of distinguishing the different types of patterns of
values by the different amounts of Dynamic Quality inherent in the way in
which they are maintained/latched'.
Would you agree with that?
As 'Pirsig does equate "consciousness" with the intellectual level' (Sam
6/11 8:07 -0000) I do NOT like Platt's addition (5/11 16:32 -0500) to the
MoQ 'to claim that the levels represent increasing levels of awareness
(consciousness)'. Platt's addition implies that 'consciousness' is a
phenomenon that operates across levels that can be used to compare all
levels. Pirsig's equation of 'consciousness' with ONLY the intellectual
level implies that it does NOT operate on the lower levels and can only be
used to compare the intellectual level with all other levels taken together.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 07:17:11 GMT