Re: MD What is a living being?

From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 29 2003 - 23:40:28 BST

  • Next message: phyllis bergiel: "Re: MD What is a living being?"

    Hi all,

    Very interesting topic here. If it is not too irritating, allow me to throw
    this wrench back in the ring:

    On the subject of only humans being able to evolve,

    Isn't technology evolving? Seems to me it is evolving faster than humans
    are. And isn't it a cohesion of static patterns? Yes (aren't all static
    patterns a cohesion of other static patterns?). Can it "respond to DQ"? It
    does seem to change and get "better", so I guess yes, it can. Some would
    say that humans are doing the responding to DQ, but as we do it on behalf of
    technology's evolution and according to technology's specific evolutionary
    needs, could it not be said that "it is a new higher level pattern where the
    whole is greater than the sum of its parts [namely, us human patterns]"?

    We use lower level patterns for our evolution also, which are surely not
    conscious of our consciousness as we put them to our use, could technology
    be a living being dong the same to us?

    Johnny

    ps, steve: without SQ, meaning has no meaning ;-)

    >From: Steve Peterson <peterson.steve@verizon.net>
    >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    >Subject: Re: MD What is a living being?
    >Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:24:02 -0400
    >
    >Hi Paul, DMB,
    >
    >Paul, I didn't noticed any more irritation than usual. Anyway, I hope you
    >continue to make your case in the future.
    >
    > > Pirsig writes:
    > > Lila is a cohesion of changing static patterns of
    > > Quality. There isn't any more to her than that. Ch 11
    > >
    > > Pirsig writes:
    > > Static patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust
    > > to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that.
    > > Ch 13
    > >
    > > Paul said:
    > > So the point is: If you add the statements together,
    > > Lila is no more than a cohesion of static patterns of
    > > Quality, therefore Lila can't perceive or adjust to
    > > Dynamic Quality.
    >
    > dmb says:
    > > This is easy. The heart of the issue centers on two key phrases: "a
    >cohesion
    > > of static patterns" and "static patterns can't by themselves". Think of
    >the
    > > cohesion as a forest. Elsewhere in the book, Pirsig describes persons as
    > > forests of static patterns, meaning a collection of various static
    >patterns
    > > from various levels. That is the MOQ's definition of people. It is only
    >the
    > > constituent static patterns in isolation, by themselves, that can't
    >respond.
    > > Seen this way, the two statements don't contradict each other in any
    >way.
    >
    >Steve:
    >Isn't a cohesion of static patterns still a static pattern? My suggestion
    >is that the emergence of a new cohesion of patterns is the Quality event
    >(what would be in SOM to MOQ transition terms "a response to DQ"). Such a
    >cohesion is a synergistic new pattern which is also a pattern of patterns,
    >(thus it is sq). It is not just a collection of patterns, it is a new
    >higher level pattern where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
    >
    >Any new pattern will include but transcend all lower level patterns. I am
    >not at all convinced that such a new pattern could only emerge on the
    >intellectual level as the statement, "only humans can respond to DQ" seems
    >to suggest.
    >
    >It makes sense to me to think of all patterns being driven toward
    >self-transcendence in forming such cohesions where this drive itself is DQ.
    >So patterns are created through DQ and also evolve toward DQ. (And without
    >DQ, sq has no meaning. Right, Johnny?). In short, my answer to your
    >question about what responds to DQ is "all static patterns." (Of course, I
    >would certainly fall in DMB category of people to be skeptical of. Heck,
    >I'd put myself there.)
    >
    >Also, I agree with Wim about the different versions of the MOQ that are
    >presented in Lila and the need to read Pirsig more interactively and
    >creatively than a Fundamentalist reads the Bible.
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Steve
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >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
    >

    _________________________________________________________________
    The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

    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 : Tue Apr 29 2003 - 23:41:20 BST