From: Chris Phoenix (cphoenix@CRNano.org)
Date: Wed Aug 18 2004 - 20:23:39 BST
The undefinability of DQ is only a consequence of the MOQ's empiricist
approach.
The insight starts with Pirsig's observation that "survival of the
fittest" is not a useful phrase. Evolution isn't about survival of the
fittest, because that's a description of stasis. Evolution is about
filling new niches.
Where do new niches come from? From DQ. DQ is exactly the creation of
new niches.
Why can't MOQ see this? Because a new niche is undetectable until it's
filled, and according to empiricism, it doesn't exist until it's
detectable. Once it's filled (by something evolving to fill it), then
you observe the static pattern and by implication the niche. But the
moment of creation of the niche was unobservable.
DQ is the creation of yet-to-be-filled evolutionary niches. Possibilities.
Empiricism, I think, has trouble dealing with possibility. But if we
make possibility explicit, and say that the division between DQ and SQ
is better expressed as a division between possibility and fulfillment, I
think that preserves Pirsig's work but extends it in important ways.
The emprical side, SQ, doesn't have to change at all. And DQ is
identified with the possibility of creating new kinds of SQ, which seems
quite consistent with the moral goodness of DQ.
This identification of DQ with the creation of new possibilities for SQ
(and specifically with the creation of new evolutionary niches) leads to
a few interesting extensions.
First, evolutionary niches can be organized into networks or systems,
like ecosystems. In this usage, a niche network is a collection of
strongly-interacting niches that only weakly interacts with niches
outside the collection. This corresponds exactly with the moral levels:
inorganic, bio, social, intellectual. Pirsig's statement that DQ arises
from subtle loopholes in the laws has been bugging me for days. I think
it's more accurate to say that new niche networks arise from subtle
loopholes. New niches within a network--new substances, species, memes,
thoughts--can arise from more gross interactions. The development of a
new network is a massive moral good, as it creates a massive new
opportunity for SQ. But the development of any new niche--any expansion
of a network--is also good.
(This solves the problem of vegetarianism. It's not that cows are more
evolved than plants, but only a little, so it's only mildly morally
wrong to eat them. Cows are in the same niche network as plants, and do
not support any higher networks, so are at the same moral level as plants.)
If moral levels are understood as networks of niches, then it's easy to
see that a system can provide a substrate for multiple higher-level
networks. Pirsig treats money as just a social pattern of values. But
money may be sufficiently complex and disconnected from society to
constitute a new network. Consider that the entire wealth of the world
is traded every few hours by currency speculators.
If two ecosystems are brought into close contact, species may cross from
one to the other and become invasive, destroying diversity. Likewise,
if different levels are brought into close contact, a pattern of value
may be injected that shakes up its own foundation. Pirsig talked about
the 50's through 70's as an example of degeneracy. It's worth noting
that at least in the 60's and 70's, medical drugs (the Pill) and
psychoactive drugs (LSD, etc) had huge impacts. Drugs are a way for the
intellectual level to affect the chemical level.
There's another thing that we call degeneracy but we shouldn't. This is
when a network is expanded enough to shake up relationships in it,
without actually destroying diversity. This is an effect within a
single moral level. This is what brujos do, and it threatens priests,
and it lets societies change, but it does not threaten to destroy them.
If I remember correctly, in some Native American tribes, gays and
transgendered people became brujos and were supported by the tribe in
that role. But in modern mainstream American society, drag queens are
viewed as horribly degenerate--even though they spend hours per day on
inventing themselves as works of art, pure DQ--and even though they hurt
no one.
Technology seems to be reaching toward total control of the chemical
level. Not in a subtle way that would preserve diversity, but in a way
that imposes intellectual patterns on chemicals wholesale: invasive
species. Is this dangerous?
After developing these thoughts over the past week or so, this morning I
read a speech by Bruce Sterling that seems to be a reaction to these
worries. He talks about unsustainability and pollution, but his
solution is to create a new network where new subtle effects can have
free reign (or is that free rein?)
http://www.boingboing.net/images/blobjects.htm
"Gizmo is an open-ended tech development project. .... The true signs of
a Gizmo are that it has a short lifespan and more functionality crammed
into it than you will ever use or understand. A Gizmo is like a Product
that has swallowed a big chunk of the previous society, and contains
that within the help center and the instruction manual. .... A Gizmo,
unlike a Machine or a Product, is not efficient. .... a Gizmo is
delicately poised between commodity and chaos. .... This is what our
society does for a living now. .... You use Gizmos to eat complexity,
and you try to sell it at a premium. .... A Gizmo is the classic form of
our society's material culture at this point in time."
A manufactured object, baroquely complex, inefficient, that has
swallowed a big chunk of society, that eats complexity... Would this not
fit every intuition of Pirsig's about what is evil?
Sterling goes on to prescribe a solution, which he calls a "Spime."
"You can think of Spimes as being auto-Googling objects. .... Whenever
you use a spime, you're rubbing up against everybody else who has that
same kind of spime. A spime is a users group first, and a physical
object second. I know that this sounds insanely complex, because it is.
.... The upshot is that the object's nature has become transparent. It
is an opened object. .... By making the whole business transparent, a
host of social ills and dazzling possibilities are exposed to the public
gaze."
I can't summarize or pull quotes that will explain very well what a
Spime is, how it works, or why that's preferable to Gizmos. (Sterling
does acknowlege a major dark side, but concludes "every one of those
menaces is also some kind of opportunity.") You may just have to read
the article.
But I wonder whether the Spime-world may be a way of refocusing our
DQ-producing efforts toward new kinds of complexity (creating space for
new moral orders founded on intellectualism/information) and away from
destabilizing control-freak meddling with lower moral orders. Or at
least, whether Sterling's desire to invent the Spime-world was inspired
by a semi-conscious recognition of the dangers posed by too much
meddling with low orders.
Chris
Mark Steven Heyman wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Well, Quality is Maximum Freedom, maybe? I don't know if I'd say DQ
> is "seeking" freedom. It's more like DQ "inspires" SQ patterns to
> increase their freedom (and morality) by latching up.
>
> How should we work this into the argument?
>
> msh
> --
> InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
> Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
> Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
>
> "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
> everything." -- Henri Poincare'
>
>
>
> On 17 Aug 2004 at 18:41, David Morey wrote:
>
> Mark
>
> Where is the freedom that DQ is seeking?
>
> regards
> David M
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 2:27 AM
> Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil
>
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Here's another attempt at a MOQ formulation of the Problem Of Evil,
>>(or The Problem of Immorality) with thanks to Mel for
>
> clarification:
>
>>(P1) QUALITY is Moral Perfection
>>(P2) QUALITY contains DQ and SQ
>>(P3) SQ attempts to dominate DQ
>>(P4) Such attempts are immoral
>>
>>Therefore, Moral Perfection contains immorality.
>>
>>Any thoughts? Complaints? Accusations?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
-- Chris Phoenix cphoenix@CRNano.org Director of Research Center for Responsible Nanotechnology http://CRNano.org MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html 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 Aug 19 2004 - 00:44:54 BST