From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Sun Aug 22 2004 - 21:22:59 BST
Hi Mark,
Vac> Mark 18-8-04: Hi Ilya, I wish to understand what contributes to openness
to
Vac> DQ. Is being open to DQ healthy? Is it dangerous? When is it more
healthy and
Vac> when is it more dangerous?
I think a person more open to DQ is more open to evolution, to personal
growth. He experiences a force that drives him forward, Forward,
FORWARD!
Mark 22-8-04: Hi Ilya, I certainly agree. DQ is the conceptual unknown which
drives the evolution of static patterns. We cannot say anything about DQ
itself, so we are restricted to sq. This is important - i agree with your
statement, "I think a person more open to DQ is more open to evolution, to personal
growth. He experiences a force that drives him forward, Forward, FORWARD!" but i
am concerned this drive doesn't turn sour? Which leads us to...
Is it healthy? - I am not sure. Is it dangerous? - Well, of course
there is always a danger in moving forward toward the unknown.
Mark 22-8-04: Indeed. Static patterning protects from too much Dynamic
influence. What may be the optimum balance between openness and static protection?
This leads us to...
Vac> Mark 18-8-04: With regard to psychological health or danger from
openness to
Vac> DQ, coherence characterises healthy states, and healthy states which are
open
Vac> to DQ.
Vac> Wim's suggestion that we consider being more or less open to DQ doesn't
say
Vac> very much it seems to me; he is stating an MOQ truism.
I'm afraid you didn't grasp the notion of openness to DQ, Mark. You talk
again and again about coherence, but coherence itself doesn't have
anything to do with openness to DQ, as I understand it.
Mark 22-8-04: I feel it does Ilya, in that coherence is 'the middle way'
between too much and too little. Do you see? If Dynamic growth is to be sustained
it must be done the best way possible - the middle way, and that is what
coherence says:
From The edge of chaos:
The sweet spot is postulated as a coherent state somewhere between these two
extremes. [Chaos and stagnation] At the sweet spot of Dynamic Quality (DQ), a
pattern is neither too static or unstable. It is here that a process is most
efficient, art more beautiful and life more serene.
Iilya, are you watching the Athens 2004 Olympic games? Don't those athletes,
'make it look easy?' Coherence is an aesthetic.
From The edge of chaos:
According to Pirsig, evolution also tends towards DQ. Therefore, sweet spots
may be viewed as the immediate cutting pressure in the evolutionary process.
Perhaps one may introduce here the simile of the cook's knife, or the
purposeless tension found in Zen in the Art of Archery.
The cook uses the knife effortlessly; it is a process were the participating
patterns are open to DQ.
Vac> Mark 18-8-04: I have no wish to define DQ by using the terms
Vac> coherent/incoherent. The postulation is that some static relationships
are more open to DQ
Vac> than others.
It seems you use "openness to DQ" in a somewhat different sense. May be I
should try to find another term for my "openness to DQ", Mark? Could you
advise me such a term?
Mark 22-8-04: I really do not believe you or i need another term Ilya,
"openness to DQ" may be rephrased, "patterned states open to DQ" because patterns
are the only things in the MOQ other than DQ. I think that is just fine. All
coherence does is take these, "patterned states open to DQ" and arranges them in
a continuum from Stagnation (Hardly open to DQ at all) through Coherence
(Harmonious openness to DQ) to Chaos (disruptive openness to DQ).
Part IIb follows.
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 : Sun Aug 22 2004 - 21:24:19 BST