From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Oct 10 2003 - 20:51:17 BST
Hi
I like very much:Their hierarchy (which is "higher" and which "lower") is
simply a matter of historical chronology and -by combining with the idea
that "all static patterns of value migrate towards DQ"- a suggestion that
"later" patterns of value have more (or "are more had by") Dynamic Quality.
(No more than a suggestion, because of the undefinability of DQ
But I would suggest that the creation of matter (stuff you can kick) has
been
brought about initially by a sacrifice of freedom/quality. It is only after
achieveing matter
that the cosmos heads back to DQ. I suggest that the big bang is a very DQ
situation,
that particles have a lot of DQ hence quantum theory's structure, atoms have
more SQ
less DQ, and molecules have more SQ less DQ. Hence the stability of
molecules,
and their move from lots of electro-magnetic rushing about to the stability
of inertia.
This is a potted scheme of A.M.Young's suggestions in The Reflexive
Universe.
The SOM divide is derived from the strong SQ of everyday matter, and the
greater DQ
of particles has led to the rethinking of ideas of matter such as in quantum
theory.
Life represents a cosmic turn from increasing SQ (to create
actuality/finite/limited/matter-like
stuff) until we reach life and that heads off back home, i.e. in the
direction of DQ.
regards
David Morey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
To: "MD" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: MD the nature of value
> Dear Sam,
>
> You wrote 4 Oct 2003 18:11:45 +0100:
> 'I see all things (ie everything static) as being patterns of value - a
> product of the interaction between Quality and other static patterns,
which
> occasionally react fruitfully - ie with dynamism - to produce something
new,
> ie a new configuration of patterns.'
>
> O.k., if I may substitute 'Dynamic Quality' for 'Quality'.
>
> You wrote 8 Sep 2003 10:05:05 +0100:
> 'there are two senses of "value" - one that can be put on a scale, with
> however fine a "mesh" you like, and one that is a synonym for experience
> within the MoQ.'
> You clarify 4 Oct 2003 18:11:45 +0100:
> 'the "scale" I'm talking about is simply the differentiation between the
> different levels of the MoQ. If all is value then the existence of the
> different levels implies a scale of value ... That is a second order
> description compared to the first order description that all is value;
that
> all things which exist are patterns of value.'
>
> Why not just 'a second order pattern of value? An intellectual pattern of
> value, because it makes a symbolic image of 'levels' stand for different
> types of patterns of value. For me 'scale of value' is unnecessary and
adds
> risks of reverting to subject-object thinking when you neglect the first
> order descriptions. But indeed, it may not necessarily imply such
reversion.
>
> I wrote 4 Oct 2003 00:03:55 +0200:
> 'No, the stability/versatility scale just determines the degree of
> "patternedness", the amount of static quality. In my version of the MoQ
> levels are distinguished by the different ways in which patterns are
> maintained/latched. Their hierarchy (which is "higher" and which "lower")
is
> simply a matter of historical chronology and -by combining with the idea
> that "all static patterns of value migrate towards DQ"- a suggestion that
> "later" patterns of value have more (or "are more had by") Dynamic
Quality.
> (No more than a suggestion, because of the undefinability of DQ.)'
>
> You comment 4 Oct 2003 18:11:45 +0100:
> 'I can see that this is a very useful tool for analyzing Quality. However,
> it seems - perhaps just a suggestion - that you don't have the discrete
> levels any more. Is that right? (Do you accept that there are levels, some
> "higher", some "lower"?)'
>
> In my version of the MoQ the levels are as discrete as the ways in which
> their patterns of value are maintained/latched. The more recently a way of
> maintaining/latching is developed, the 'higher' the level.
> Strange that this was not clear to you from what I wrote 4 Oct 2003
00:03:55
> +0200!
>
> More interesting to me, you started to comment on my way of distinguishing
> the levels:
> 'You define the third level as unconscious static latching?
> To my mind that is a good description, but it is - or may be - a
description
> of something epiphenomenal, ie not of the essence of the third level. In
> other words, I think that you are pointing out something which is true,
but
> which doesn't give a full account; it is necessary but it is not
sufficient.
> I think that a full account of the third level needs to make some
reference
> to the governing milieu within which the unconscious copying takes place,
ie
> the field of language and culture, narratives, rituals and mythology. So I
> think you've latched(!) on to a part of the explanation (which hasn't been
> adequately addressed before) but I think there is more to be added on to
> make it comprehensive.
> Similarly, I think you conceive the fourth level to be conscious copying
of
> behaviour patterns?
> Again, I don't think this is a sufficient account of the fourth level, for
> similar reasons.'
>
> I summarized my views 23 Aug 2003 15:07:56 +0200:
> 'I distinguish levels of static quality by the different ways in which
> patterns of value are latched, in which their stability and versatility
are
> maintained. 3rd Level patterns of value are maintained by (unconscious)
> copying of behavior. 4rd Level patterns of value are maintained by
> (conscious) copying of motivations for behavior. (To distinguish motivated
> "behavior" from unmotivated behavior, I often use the verb "to act" for
the
> first and "to behave" for the latter.)'
>
> I agree that the terms 'unconscious' and 'conscious' are epiphenomenal.
> That's why I put them in between brackets. In some senses the terms
> 'unconscious' and 'conscious' can help to indicate what I mean. There are
> (for my purposes) too many wrong ways of interpreting them to make them
> essential parts of my definitions (e.g. 'unconscious' in 'Lila was lying
on
> the cabin floor unconscious'...).
>
> So you can read my definitions as 'copying behaviour' and 'copying
> motivations'.
> Symbolic language was not present when people (i.e. early hominids) only
> copied behaviour.
> Culture is a too vague word to be of much use here. I'm fine with Pirsig's
> definition of culture from 'Lila's Child' as the sum total of 'social and
> intellectual values' (which I translate as 'social and intellectual
patterns
> of value').
> Narratives and mythology require symbolic language and are part of the
> governing milieu for 'copying motivations', not for 'copying behaviour'.
> Rituals are complex sets of behaviour. Some of them may have formed the
> threshold between social and intellectual patterns of value, because they
> may have made the insight dawn on early homo sapiens that they might be
> performing those (religious) rituals 'because' somehow 'cosmic order'
> required them to (because it had to be maintained or because they had to
> stay in line with it or whatever).
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 Oct 10 2003 - 20:53:11 BST