From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 16:19:42 GMT
Wim, Platt, DMB, all,
Wim, I said I would think more about the way you explained the static levels
and how we can categorize patterns if value by the way they are latched.
Wim wrote (back in November in the levels thread):
"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. "
Steve: I really like your explanation and find it useful though I'm still
working on being able to categorize patterns of value. Let me try it here:
>> Platt said:
>> In MoQ terms, the individual is the intellectual level, the public the
>> social, placing the individual at a higher moral level than the mob.
>>
>> DMB says:
>> Would you like to back up the idea that the 3rd and 4th levels are defined
>> this way? I think its not essentially about individuals-vs-groups and that
>> you've confused Robert Pirsig with Ayn Rand here.
>
Platt quipped:
> Last time I looked, intellectuals were individuals.
>
Steve:
In Wim's formulation, I think it follows that an individual is "latched"
through "unconscious copying of behavior." If I think of a person as a
biological pattern with a personality then this makes sense to me. A
person's personality is gradually latched onto existing biological patterns
through unconscious copying.
Since all people are on the same level, then it follows that two people can
only be compared in terms of stability/versatility/receptiveness to change.
(Didn't we eventually agree that every person is a social pattern of value?
Someone posted a quote (from Lila's child I think) to back this up. I
haven't been able to find it.)
If the individual and the mob are both social patterns of value, then since
the individual is more receptive to change he is more moral. Would you
agree?
Steve
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 Jan 19 2003 - 16:21:07 GMT