RE: MD What is a living being?

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 08:48:20 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD MOQ"

    Hello everyone, old and new.
    First of all congratulations to Dan Glover for the paper edition of
    "Lila's Child", I didn't know until you referred to Struan Hellier's review. The
    said piece may not be very sales-promoting at the Amazon cyber bookstore,
    but maybe it's out in the real world also? Yet, in spite of this Struan evokes a
    certain nostalgia with me reminding me of the first "wild" year(s) of the Lila
    Squad. It sounds like ousting Pirsig has become his mission in life - not
    refuting him because Struan does not understand the MOQ, a proof of
    which is the New Age accusation, the least fitting criticism that can be
    directed toward Pirsig's work. That also goes for his making it sound as if
    absence/silence is a proof of "apostasy". That is not true, not for this guy at
    least.

    However, paying a visit I can't but comment the "Living Being" thread. It
    caught my interest when skimming through the archives a few days ago ...
    to the degree of sending Paul Turner a private note which was included in
    his summary. Since then many posts have been delivered and "Valence"
    Budd must be given credit for pointing out it's correct context which backs
    the "human" interpretation. In addition I dumped a lot of comments on to
    poor Paul, but was most pleased to find my view reflected in Steve
    Peterson's post of May 1st. In that connection I wrote to Steve, but thought
    better of it, such behind-the-scene activity is pointless. I may as well deliver
    it now though (below) There have been other interesting threads in the past,
    particularly one between Sam and David B ("Systematic something") it's
    always thrilling when DMB speaks about the mythology/social level
    relationship.

    Sincerely
    Bo
    ..............................................................

    Hello Steve
    You wrote:

    > Every species is constantly changing in response to every other
    > species. These changes occur within the biological level, however.

    Right! I think I said (to Paul) something about there being enough
    "tolerances" in the static biological realm to allow for any conceivable
    creature.There is really no limit to life forms.

    > The new cohesions that we are talking about --the ones that would
    > constitute a truly dynamic response-- emerge through Quality events
    > which produce new types of patterns that include and transcend all lower
    > level patterns.

    Exactly! My reasoning is that (all) levels could only emerge from a
    stable base, any dynamical development down below would topple the
    whole edifice. Yet, "quality events" at the (at any time) upper level
    reverberates down through the static hierarchy.

    > Anyway, my idea is to define a response to DQ as one that produces a
    > higher level pattern. See how this works:

    Agree. My vision of the MOQ universe is that of something expanding,
    consequently it's the outer fringes of the outer "shell" - intellect -
    that sends tendrils into, the dynamic void beyond to find a new static
    foothold.

    > Biological pattern produce new biological patterns all the time. But
    > since these patterns are on the same level as the patterns that produced
    > them, we may not want to call it a "dynamic response." Biological
    > patterns are just following the static pattern of changing in response
    > to other species.

    Exactly! The "production of new biological patterns" may be dynamical
    responses to changing inorganic (environmental) conditions, but doesn't
    mean any "new deal" at the biological level.

    > A dynamic response for the biological level would be to produce
    > social patterns (or perhaps some other new kind of pattern that we
    > haven't noticed).

    EXACTLY!! However, your aside: "...or perhaps some other ...etc" is worth a
    thread of its own. If there is life (biology) on other planets (inorganic), the
    social development will necessarily follow next, and then intellect in due time
    ...in my opinion.

    > Do humans respond to DQ? Yes, if we think of humans as social
    > patterns that can produce new intellectual patterns or intellectual
    > patterns that can produce some still higher level pattern.

    Just perfect about "..... humans as social patterns that can ...etc, but
    I believe that the BASIC value of intellect is established long ago and
    that its "rules" can spawn an infinite number of intellectual patterns.
    However, one such will exceed the "escape velocity and" and ...go off on
    a purpose of its own.

    > What do you think?

    I think you are on solid MOQ ground.

    Bodvar Skutvik
    known as "Bo".

    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 May 08 2003 - 08:48:50 BST