From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Thu Apr 24 2003 - 15:30:51 BST
Hi Platt,
> Not sure what you're driving at, but if you mean the levels are relative
to
> one another, yes, I agree.
That's not quite what I meant. I mean that any given SQ structure can be
seen as organised around certain absolutes, or fundamental givens, which
operate for as long as that structure continues. A DQ innovation can improve
that structure in such a way that what had previously been seen as absolute
is now seen as 'absolute until then'. An example follows
> But the static patterns at the inorganic and
> biological levels are absolute in that they no longer can be affected by
> DQ. Pirsig makes the point that now only living beings (referring to
> humans) can respond to DQ. Cockroaches have reached the end of
> their evolutionary chain.
I don't agree with this. It rules out (for example) some future catastrophe
which will open up new possibilities of cockroach evolution. What Pirsig
says is true for as long as our present system obtains - ie, as long as the
present system is taken as the absolute boundary. If that is changed, then
the situation changes, and the evolutionary potential changes. How do you
understand genetic enhancement? Is that not a DQ innovation in the
biological realm, albeit one driven by level 3 and 4 motivations?
>With humans in "control" of the social and
> intellectual patterns, those patterns are more subject to change as a
> result of the influence of human responses to DQ, although the social is
> very hardened compared to intellect. Since the intellectual patten is
> most open to DQ and even seeks it out (if you're pursuing beauty in
> whatever you do), that level is, as you say, "to be preferred."
Fine with that.
>
> I'd rather fetishise DQ than SQ. But there's always the danger in doing
> so to forget our dependence on SQ, like the Hippies in the 60's did.
> Push the envelope towards greater harmony and beauty, but never
> destroy the envelope in the effort. How does that strike you as a general
> principle?
>
That strikes a good note. Anything which emphasises the interdependence of
SQ and DQ I would be happy with (ie which makes Quality more important than
the subsequent division into Static and Dynamic). There was a Wilber quote
(something about greatest depth and greatest span) which said something
similar, wasn't there? (Although I prefer your envelope language. I speak
only from the second hand knowledge gleaned from this list, but Wilber
strikes me as something of a windbag....)
Sam
"Even to have expressed a false thought boldly and clearly is already to
have gained a great deal." Wittgenstein, 1948
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 : Thu Apr 24 2003 - 22:15:41 BST