From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Mar 24 2004 - 15:07:40 GMT
> Mark 24-03-04: It would seem we have different views upon this issue. This
> would explain a great deal about why you don't click with the coherence
> stuff. I don't view this as a problem, i feel relieved to have discovered
> one of the barriers to progress. In response, i would ask you to consider,
> for an experiment, a different world? In this world, everything is evolving
> every second of the day, all around you. The Inorganic is evolving so
> slowly, as to appear to be standing idle. The Organic is evolving faster,
> but you would have to live 1000 years to notice it. The social is evolving
> faster still, but you have to look back on an entire life span to see the
> detail. The intellectual is evolving daily with the publication of new
> ideas and concepts. (Science is Intellectual value.) Give it a go? And then
> see if the rest comes into focus?
Sorry Mark, I don't buy it. You'll have to provide some evidence that the
inorganic level is evolving. At the biological level, evolution is so slow
as to be meaningless to human life. Show me a new species that portends
some significant change in the biosphere since man arrived on the scene
and perhaps I can be convinced that biological evolution isn't
insignificant. We agree that the social level, under the influence of
individuals responding to DQ, is still evolving as is the intellectual
level, both human-driven.
> Mark 24-03-04: I honestly thought the term coherence was good old plain
> English. When thinking about stable impermanent structures i felt it was
> helpful to call them coherent.
I would describe stable impermanent structures as 'adaptable.'
> Mark 24-03-04: The significance of relationships between patterns is that
> they appear to become coherent. It can be argued that experience shows us
> this to be the point where DQ is at work. If you are still holding in your
> head the world view i suggested above, you are not only surrounded by, but
> participate IN evolution as it is happening ri ght NOW. YOU are evolving
> right now. That is to say, you are emerging from the event stream, and
> heading towards DQ right now. When this is going well, your patterns are
> coherent. If you are playing tennis and hitting the ball well, you are an
> excellent player - coherent.
Yes--I hope, like Lila, that I'm evolving towards DQ. Pirsig says
everybody is (every human being that is). I fail to see how hitting the
ball well while playing tennis has anything to do with my evolution or
'coherence.' If I'm hitting the ball well, it's most likely the result of
long practice, not a response to DQ.
> > Mark 22-03-04: Thought is patterned. Patterns are migrating towards DQ.
>
> Patterns of life are migrating, not all patterns.
>
> Mark 24-03-04: If what you say is so, then my thesis is wrong.
Well, this is the nub of our disagreement. I've searched Pirsig's writings
to see if he addresses the question head on, but can't a definitive
answer. Looks like a case of two different interpretations of the MOQ,
which is what makes this site so interesting.
Thanks for bearing with me, Mark. Maybe I'm just hung up on your choice of
words.
Best,
Platt
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 : Wed Mar 24 2004 - 15:05:50 GMT