From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Sat Mar 20 2004 - 16:44:54 GMT
I suspect there is probably an optimal diversity, which would be relate
to concepts found in self-organised chaos.
Mark 20-03-04: Hi Jim, More stimulating stuff here! Chaos theory and
Complexity theory appear to be a scientific community attempt to deal with why it
should be that evolution is evolving so well in the face of the dead hand of the
second law of thermodynamics? But the MoQ suggests an answer: Static patterns
of Quality are migrating towards DQ.
In ecological terms this
would relate to the best filling of all available ecological niches. If
there were fewer species, then there would be gaps to exploit and
divergent evolution/external species would fill them; if there were too
many, then their populations would dwindle and become unviable so we
have some form of dynamic equilibrium.
Mark 20-03-04: You have used here terms such as the best and dynamic
equilibrium. Dynamic and Quality (best) are central terms in the MoQ. Equilibrium in
the MoQ becomes a tension between patterns, and that point where DQ intervenes.
Thus we have a universal metaphysical principle at work in evolution - the
Tao - Quality.
I remember reading an article in
New Scientist a couple of years back about an ecologist (scientist not
activist sense) in Costa Rica concluding that the health of biosphere
was indicated by it's closeness to this optimum level, and that species
were created and became extinct all the time. Unfortunately it's one of
those theories likely to exploited by anti-ecological social forces who
will gleefully seize on its concept that we shouldn't get too hung up
about extinctions out of context.
Mark 20-03-04: This may sound hard nosed stuff, but it may also be the way of
things? The problem with prolonged Human activity is that it upsets Dynamic
equilibrium and therefore threatens a stable biospherical pattern of which we
are a sharing partner?
In other levels I would think that perhaps BritArt is precisely the
point at which diversity is becoming watered down to the point of
non-viability. Maybe that's a cause for celebration as it could be
taken as an indicator of a thriving intellectual ecology :-/. Maybe I
can get out of this unwelcome (to me) apparent support for the state of
BritArt by hypothesising that the intellectual sphere of BritArt is a
closed system, and that it may well be healthy in its own terms but poor
in terms of relating to a wider social/intellectual sphere which I feel
it is one of the basic responsibilities of intellectual quality. I
don't know. Maybe that's dangerously close to a closed intellectual
system which refuses to allow DQ to spread. Or maybe it's a higher yet
value system?
Mark 20-03-04: I like your introduction of closed systems. I regard the
Jewish social pattern, for example, to be a very tightly controlled closed social
system. This may suggest why it is successful? (Crocodiles and alligators may
be closed Organically patterned systems? They are an evolutionary 'dead end'
but do what they do so well they persevere.) The problem for such patterns is
when they are attacked by Dynamic Quality, as is inevitable. There is also a
threat from the higher level?
The BritArt example has displayed evidence of being a bit on the closed side?
It's a club of people who enjoy a certain degree of self supporting
patronage, which elicits social status rather than any intellectual merit? I am not
sure about this.
In expanding on the situations where diversity is not synonymous with
quality in a kind of reduction ad absurdam argument (perhaps a naive one
and I'm not suggesting that this is what you meant), a simplistic
approach to diversity == quality would suggest that in biological
science the more animal experimentation done the better.
Mark 20-03-04: I have not suggested that diversity = Quality. I am suggesting
that diversity is dynamic. This presents the problem of why it should be that
diversity and dynamic response is stable? The answer for me is coherence.
Coherence accommodates both DQ as motivation and evolutionary goal.
Science does not give a damn about the ethical status of animals. The ethical
status of animals does have a position in the MoQ, and this debate deserves a
thread of its own? Fair play to you for challenging your own position with
difficult issues.
Again, this
can only be the case in a very closed intellectual sphere with no regard
to the wider social feedback resulting from such experimentation. To
suggest that "don't be such a wuss, this is expanding intellectual
quality (aka science)" erodes many healthy social protocols regarding
mutual respect, I would think.
Mark 20-03-04: You may be pointing towards a higher coherence? One that
accommodates all levels in a better progression?
Disease of some form is fairly inevitable in a diverse ecosystem. Taken
on a simplistic level maybe we should celebrate disease as being
indicative of diversity! On the social level, this would be akin to
celebrating criminality I guess. On the intellectual level: I'm not
sure: celebrating plagiarism and scientific fraud and disputation for
it's own sake, I guess.
Mark 20-03-04: Fair points.
However rather than try to stamp out the
diversity, higher level protocols have to be worked out. With respect
to disease - hygeine. With respect to criminality - laws. With
respect to intellectual abuse - professional ethics, I suppose. In each
case there is (or should be) a celebration of diversity - that is the
extinction of diversity should only be accomplished where the conflict
jeopardizes survival.
Mark 20-03-04: Well thought out. And all this can be placed in an MoQ
context?
Which kinda brings us to the state of current
world affairs, I suppose; but I don't want to go there today.
Mark 20-03-04: I understand the feeling. ;-)
But I
would note that it has been hypothesised that the current increases of
basic allergies suffered by children is due to a lack of building up
basic immunities to to over-use of basic hygeine practices. On the
social level this could be analogous to an over-refined set of social
structures (Victorian) where the presence of a mild profanity might
cause the moral equivalent of hyperallergic reaction. On the
intellectual level I guess this would be analogous to excessive witch
hunts and denouncements of heterodox opinions as unscientific. This
could also be expanded to attitudes related to pornography and hate
literature. Celebrating pornography and hate literature per se would be
celebrating the disease as evidence of diversity. To use the law
against them however should be used with caution. I guess this would be
the case when the pornography involved or encouraged rape or child abuse
(non-consensual acts), or where the hate literature consituted
incitement to violence.
Mark 20-03-04: A wide ranging accommodation of diversity/evolution issues
here! Much stimulating material.
However, a lot of this is reasoning (at least I hope it's reasoning) by
analogy and should be used with caution. Each case should be taken on
it's own merits. Over generalisation is an intellectual problem.
ATB
Jim
Mark 20-03-04: Re: Over generalisation. Yes, i feel the problem also. But we
are exploring Metaphysics here, and by its nature, metaphysics deals with the
bottom line in our interpretation of experience? In the MoQ, this is Quality.
Progressing, this becomes the general principle of Universal harmony, and its
SQ-DQ aspects. Moving further, these aspects share a relationship which
unfolds Universal Harmony in coherence. We are now in a position to enquire into our
experience with some valuable tools? Maybe? I do myself think so.
All the best,
Mark
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 : Sat Mar 20 2004 - 16:54:13 GMT