From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Fri Sep 30 2005 - 16:05:38 BST
[Mark Maxwell]
>>> I've been thinking about feedback loops as described
>>> in cybernetics. The word cybernetics comes from the Greek,
>>> Steers-man, and has been closely linked with the evolution of
>>> patterns; all patterns.
>>> It strikes me that the metaphor of a steersman
>>> implicitly acknowledges motion towards a sweet-spot.
[DM]
: sweet spot is OK as a term, but I like to stay in touch
> with value as motivating our choices, and choices as made
> possible by a sea of possibilities.
[Case]
I think the term "sweet spot" is precisely the idea Pirsig inadvertently
removed from MoQ in selecting the terms he did. Recognition and pursuit of
the "sweet spot" is central to Taoism. By chosing to focus on the esthetic
acpects of the term Quality he sidelined harmony. I miss it.
[Mark Maxwell}
>>> ZMM describes the 'steering' of the mechanic, the
>>> bike, the life, toward the sweet spot. The MOQ
>>> suggests an ontology of patterns and DQ. Steering,
>>> the way i think of it in MOQ terms, becomes an emerging
>>> coherent relationship between sq patterns in
>>> response to DQ.
[Case]
Ok so it isn't gone from Pirsig just under appreciated here.
[Mark Maxwell]
>>> Cybernetics can be applied here:
>>> Primary MOQ ontology comprises DQ and the four sq
>>> patterns. Secondary MOQ ontology would comprise coherent
>>> relationships of peak excellence in cybernetic (steers-man-like)
>>> process.
[Case]
I like where you are going with this but I believe you have it backwards. I
think the pursuit of the 'sweet spot' should be the primary ontology and
this static level business secondary.
[Mark Maxwell]
>>> Secondary events distinguish between Primary 'what
>>> are' (cycle, man, spanner, oil, logical symbolism,
>>> etc.) and what happens or emerges from these in
>>> coherent relationships (maintenance, riding, etc.)
>>> Secondary MOQ ontology comprises SQ patterns tending
>>> towards DQ. Hence, a steers-man-like process.
[Case]
Again "Quality" is occurs when SQ and DQ are balanced?
[Mark]
>>> An answer may be Harmony; Harmony is a Secondary MOQ
>>> ontology. For Harmony to establish there must be prior
>>> (Primary) relationships of some description?
[Case]
If harmony is seen as the primary ontology then doesn't the relationship
emerge from the harmony? Isn't that was Pirsig was getting at?
[DM:]
Is harmony required for duration? without harmony
> we get destruction, things falling apart, chaos, going down the levels.
[Case]
In nature harmony is what is left when everything else falls away or gets
canceled out. For creatures like us, striving as we do not to get canceled
out, harmony must be fiddled with to be maintained. It is in effect: the
Dynamic pursuit of SQ.
[Mark]
>>> For example, we may imagine nothing but Inorganic
>>> patterns. From these patterns emerge harmonic
>>> relationships. If this is a feature of value
>>> evolution, then Intellectual harmony and Inorganic
>>> harmony share a common feature with all other
>>> levels; Organic and Social relationships. In other words,
>>> harmony may be valued by Intellectual relationships,
>>> because harmony is everywhere. This may imply
>>> 'resonance' between evolutionary related levels of
>>> value patterns rather than an application or
>>> imposition by one i.e. the Intellectual.
[Case]
And isn't this how Pirsig dealt with SOM by showing that Static and Dynamic
forces operate in metaphysically similar ways on both subjects and objects?
The subjects and object don't go away we just get a better understanding of
them.
[Mark]
>>> To sum up:
>>> 1. The MOQ describes ontological events, not objects.
>>> 2. Primary MOQ ontology is four sq levels and DQ.
>>> 3. Cybernetics steers primary sq patterns toward coherent, secondary MOQ
>>> ontology.
>>> 4. Primary MOQ ontology is concerned with what IS but all sq eventually
>>> returns to nothing 5. Secondary MOQ ontology is concerned with what
>>> happens.
but may eventually turn into enduring sq, eg money as a pattern
>>> 6. A key distinguishing feature of secondary ontology is Harmony.
> higher levels require more harmony to endure, yes, otherwise return to
> lower level
>>> Any thoughts are welcome.
[Case]
Since Pirsig concludes that Good is a noun I am not so sure about #1. I tend
to think of events as verbs. I think Harmony is actually a better term than
Quality and we should be talking about MoH rather than MoQ. As I have said I
think your secondary ontology should be primary. The fact that most people
don't see it that way results in a lot of arguing about the primacy of
levels and whether this or that belongs in this or that level. These are
taxonomic disputes about James Maxwells's stamp collecting. They strike me
as being of secondary importance.
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 : Fri Sep 30 2005 - 16:11:07 BST