Re: MD reification of patterns (MD levels etc)

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sun Dec 08 2002 - 11:46:01 GMT

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD 10 statements: (for Wim on the degeneracy issue)"

    Dear Sam,

    Thanks for your attempt (28 Nov 2002 10:25:03 -0000) to summarize some of my
    views.

    '1. The social level began a *very* long time ago, possibly pre-dating
    language, but in any case we are talking about hundreds of thousands of
    years at least, maybe 2 million or so.'

    A bit more precise even: The social level (consistent passing on and
    preserving of 'culture' between generations) began when hominids split off
    from anthropoid apes, I think some 2 million years ago. This might even be
    taken as defining 'hominids'. (I don't know how scientists are used to
    distinguish between hominids and antropoid apes.)

    '2. The intellectual level began with ritual, in that ritual "encoded"
    certain breakthroughs. That was, say 50-100,000 years ago.'

    That's what I think.

    '3. The social level can be seen in human imitation.'

    Yes, in imitating behavior, thus creating 'culture' or shared habits/ways of
    doing things.

    '4. The intellectual level can be understood through an analysis of human
    motivation.'

    I doubt about the inclusion of the words 'understood' and 'analysis'. Why
    not just: 'The intellectual level can be seen in human imitiation of
    motives.'

    '5. There are no "things" ("objects"?). There are only patterns.'

    We experience patterns. One of these patterns is 'subject-object thinking'.
    To be aware of other patterns we should not distinguish between 'experience'
    and 'existence'. (But often it is not necessary or even useful to be aware
    of other patterns...) When we are thinking in terms of subjects and objects,
    things (subjects and objects) ARE there; we experience them.

    '6. The patterns can be classified according to the four levels of the MoQ.
    Each level describes a step-change in the amount of Q that has been
    "latched".
    7. The most interesting way of talking about patterns is through
    consideration of their versatility or adaptability. In other words, their
    openness to DQ. Higher level patterns both 'contain' (exemplify?) more
    Quality, and they are more open to moving or migrating towards DQ.'

    I'd rather say that change of level implies some fundamental change in the
    way DQ is 'latched'. Every level offers freedom from the static patterns of
    the next-lower level. So in a sense 'freedom' (changeability, versatility)
    increases when going up the hierarchy of levels. This 'freedom' is one of
    the pointers towards DQ, without defining it.
    We can talk about patterns
    a) by describing the way in which they are 'latched' (how their stability is
    preserved),
    b) by comparing stability and versatility (potential for change without
    becoming unrecognizable) between patterns and
    c) by describing the 'balance' between stability and versatility of a
    particular pattern in terms of its harmony with (pointing towards) higher
    level patterns of value (or DQ if there is no higher level).

    What's the most 'interesting' way to talk about patterns depends on personal
    preferences. Difficult to say what's most interesting for you, when you
    combine 'anarchism' and 'conservatism'. (-:

    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 : Sun Dec 08 2002 - 11:48:21 GMT