Re: MD interaction between levels - ?

From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Sun Sep 05 2004 - 08:47:32 BST

  • Next message: ml: "Re: MD Political Correctness"

    Hello Marsha.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: MarshaV
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 5:03 AM
    Subject: Re: MD interaction between levels - ?

    <snip>

    > I have a question. Why does it have to be hierarchical?
    > Why can't the 'four levels' be four major systems that
    > interact with each other? Interconnected. There can
    > still exist the respect for the old stability and the new
    > freedom.

    mel:
    If I understand correctly, the notion of heirarchy is
    from the order of their arising and the way in which
    each level emerges from the one that came before.

    To put it another way, you cannot have significant
    intellectual activity and subjects unless a society
    exists with all of its full wealth of subject matter,
    complexity, and structure for the intellect to draw
    upon.

    Similarly there is little possibility for a society if
    there are no biological beings to support, create,
    and enrich one.

    As there can be no biological beings without a
    supporting physical universe complete with its
    chemistry and chemicals, and processes.

    In practice, there are four major systems that
     interact with each other, Interconnected.
    But because of their unique connections, each
    'daughter' system is in conflict at times with its
    'mother' system, yet exists only because of it.

    Each level can only see any other level through
    the 'older' or original level's rules, the only ones
    by which it can itself operate. The higher level
    can see the rules of the lower level, but sees
    others as well. Those others that it sees are the
    rules than define the higher level AS higher.

    Stability may be the biggest illusion of all. In
    even our understanding of rock and metal the
    material of which each is constructed is very
    much more dynamic than the 'normal' or our
    accustomed view holds.

    In some way Pirsig might have done better to
    find another word than Static in the MoQ to get
    the notion of Less Dynamic across, as the word
    static can be read to mean unchanging.

    On a visit to the Monterrey Aquarium this summer
    it occurred to me that the MoQ is in some ways
    conceptually like a Coral. The new generation of
    coral are soft and mobile and have the ability and
    opportunity to go anywhere, they are Dynamic, but
    once their choice has been made, they are the
    newest or freshest accretion on their local part of
    the reef, they are becoming Static. While centimeters,
    meters, or significant fractions of a kilometer below
    our newly fixed coral polyp, are the dead and accreted
    mass of long Static supporting mass. Yet, even in the
    oldest level there is change; it compresses and
    begins to behave in a manner more like a rock, than
    anything living.

    So, in a way, the 'old stability' supports the new
    freedom.

    Hope this helps somewhat and I am sure that
    others will do better to clarify any questions. That's
    my attempt...

    thanks--mel

    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 Sep 05 2004 - 08:50:22 BST