From: mark maxwell (laughingpines@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Sep 30 2005 - 21:34:38 BST
Mark:
...cybernetics comes from the Greek, Steers-man, and
has been closely linked with the evolution of 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 choosing to focus on
the aesthetic aaspectsof the term Quality he sidelined
harmony. I miss it.
Mark 30-9-05:
Hello David and Case, first, regarding choices. If the
sweet spot is the best relationship capable of being
reached, one would wish to choose it, surely? To
choose otherwise is to deliberately avoid the best.
It's kind of interesting that one could argue that not
knowing about the sweet spot means you are ignorant of
that which is the best, and that sounds a bit Socratic
doesn't it? Can excellence be taught? Yes, through
example and immediate experience of the sweet spot.
I value what your thoughts on this David.
Next, sweet spot as a missing aspect of the MOQ. I
find it difficult to imagine the MOQ not being able to
deal with harmonious relationships such as the
motorcycle mechanic and his work.
I have a suspicion harmony does not appear to be part
of the MOQ because the MOQ combines a bBuddhistlike
metaphysics of Universal flux with Evolution. It's the
evolution aspect which disrupts harmony, because
evolution is a struggle.
Having said that, there are empirical experiences of
the sweet spot. What is to be said?
You say Case that a focus on aesthetic aspects of the
term Quality may be responsible. I have a feeling
aesthetics and ethics are tied up at the sweet spot:
the best relationships are both beautiful and ethical
in the highest sense. I feel sure of it when i
experience them.
I borrowed the term Coherence to use instead of 'sweet
spot' with evolution in mind; complexity theory, which
deals with feedback and evolution, values coherent
states and i felt this term could be employed because
of these linguistic resonances.
Mark:
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 30-9-05:
I'm not convinced it has gone, and it may be under
appreciated.
Mark:
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 30-9-05:
That's a very interesting comment.
The reason i think of sweet spot as secondary is as
follows: Secondary ontological events are CLOSER to DQ
than primary ontological events. The secondary events
emerge as more Dynamic relationships; they respond in
a very positive way to DQ more than primary static
relationships, and then collapse and dissipate back
into primary events. But their surge forward may
produce an evolutionary latch?
Can this help resolve your dislike of static levels?
Case:
Again "Quality" is occurs when SQ and DQ are balanced?
Mark 30-9-05:
I think i passed through this way too Case. I can see
what you're saying, i think. But it's not right.
DQ has to be left right out of this. Right out.
We can only talk about sq.
With this in mind, we have to say, Quality occurs when
sq and sq are balanced.
This is why i introduced secondary ontology in the
first place. See? sq-sq harmony generates those
excellent events you miss. But they are fleeting and
then dissipate.
A master of whatever Human endeavour - and most of us
have been lucky enough to see and hear them perform,
or observe their works or whatever at some point in
our lives - a master lives to generate secondary
ontology. This is Art.
But DQ is behind it all. It's just that we can't talk
about it without f^*&"$g it up big time.
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?
Mark 30-9-05:
I'm trying to restrict myself to the MOQ as described
in Lila. It is here we are provided with the MOQ's
ontology, and it is here that harmony appears to be
conspicuous by its absence.
ZMM is FULL of talk about harmony. Full of it; it's
everywhere and you can't miss it. It is here, in ZMM,
that Harmony seems to be close to primary ontology,
and so i can agree with you.
But there is NO concept of evolution in the Tao. The
MOQ however, places the evolution of values close to
its ontology. Something doesn't seem quite right, and
the only way i feel we can adequately deal with this
is to drop ZMM and focus on the MOQ.
I may be on a daft wild goose chase, reinventing the
wheel and plain stoopid to boot.
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 cancelled out. For creatures like
us, striving as we do not to get cancelled
out, harmony must be fiddled with to be maintained. It
is in effect: the Dynamic pursuit of SQ.
Mark 30-9-05:
I like your point David, harmony does appear to be a
sustaining factor.
Case, striving not to get candled out is something i
do not understand. If we remember that you, me, and
David are participating in evolution, then there will
always be a degree of resistance to death. Evolution
is a struggle for biological patterns to survive,
social status to gain, intellectual immortality to
reach. Allot of pain.
But is there a fine balance one may walk? A balance or
middle way which resists the least and is the most
Dynamic? And is this to participate in evolution or to
'pass go without collecting your £200 and go straight
to DQ'? If all sq patterns are migrating toward DQ and
you can get there NOW as a fleeting secondary
ontological event, lucky the artist?
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 30-9-05:
If i'm reading you correctly, yes. Reality, no matter
what the level, is all 'made' of the same stuff.
Subjects and Objects are simply one aspect of the same
stuff looking at another aspect of the same stuff.
Bertrand Russell, in his later life, adopted a version
of William James' neutral Monism which made similar
claims, so 20th century Western philosophy is quite at
home with these ideas. There is nothing remotely new
about 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
DM:
but all sq eventually returns to nothing
Mark 30-9-05:
I don't remember writing this. Is this David?
I'm not sure what this means.
5. Secondary MOQ ontology is concerned with what
happens.
DM:
but may eventually turn into enduring sq, eg money as
a pattern.
Mark 30-9-05:
I think so.
6. A key distinguishing feature of secondary ontology
is Harmony.
DM:
higher levels require more harmony to endure, yes,
otherwise return to lower level
Mark 30-9-05:
At this late stage in the post i'm going to suggest
that the term Harmony be dropped and the term
Coherence replace it. Unless allot of people like this
way of using the term harmony?
Case:
Since Pirsig concludes that Good is a noun I am not so
sure about #1.
Mark 30-9-05:
Good is a noun. That was it. That was what Phaedrus
had been looking for. That was the homer, over the
fence that ended the ball game. Good as a noun rather
than an adjective is all the Metaphysics of Quality is
about. Of course, the ultimate Quality isn’t a noun or
an adjective or anything else definable, but if you
had to reduce the whole Metaphysics of Quality to a
single sentence, that would be it.
Case:
I tend to think of events as verbs.
Mark 30-9-05:
Events may be either good or bad, and this clinches
it. Although Universal flux is maintained by modern
science and Buddhist metaphysics, that which can be
said to exist in spite of it all are excellent events.
This places morality right at the centre of it all,
and banishes nihilism even though all is change.
Case:
I think Harmony is actually a better term than Quality
and we should be talking about MoH rather than MoQ.
Mark 30-9-05:
You may be right.
Case:
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.
Mark 30-9-05:
In a sense, secondary ontology as proposed is more
immediate and closer to DQ. I think people do see this
more clearly than the levels. I may be wrong!
Also, secondary ontology may be useful regarding self
identity? Human beings are prime examples of secondary
ontological events?
Case:
These are taxonomic disputes about James Maxwells's
stamp collecting. They strike me as being of secondary
importance.
Mark 30-9-05:
The history of the MD has a great deal of silt in it
regarding taxonomy. However, i have found that among
groups of people who talk the same talk and use the
same MOQ language, things become quite a bit more
clear. After all, four levels and DQ can be written on
the back of a stamp!
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
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 - 21:49:24 BST