From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue May 11 2004 - 20:43:08 BST
Mark said:
The second perspective is represented by Quality = Reality. The
equating of Quality and Reality is not empirical to the extent that we
don't simply mean "Experience" when we say "Reality," but rather
Quality = Reality is an evolutionary theory.
DM: Not so sure. The only known reality is an experienced one.
Reality is an event, an event is where the multiplicity of the possible
collapses into the specific actual. Where the possible is richer
than the real/actual as Prigogine says. But, of course, as particle
interference patterns show, the possible has an influence on the
present, and where there are possibilities there are choices, and
choices imply experience/consciousness. A man pauses at a junction
in the road because he has to decide which of his possible futures
he wishes to embrace. But alternatively, there are aspects of reality
that may be without experience/consciouness. When 2 marbles hit
the sq of each attempts to retain the shape of the marble resulting in an
elastic collision and repulsion, perhaps such interaction is mechanistic
in some sense, i.e. without any consideration/influence/purpose about
what sort of future is most valued.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <Valuemetaphysics@aol.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: MD Patterns
> Hi All,
>
> I want to try to give a better idea of what I mean by a pattern which I
> think is also what Pirsig may mean by a pattern.
>
> Mark 8-5-04: Hello Steve, A pattern for Pirsig emerges from the Dynamic
flux
> of experience. The Dynamic flux is where we begin. Patterns are
experienced
> because we value them - when we do not value a pattern we don't experience
it.
> For example, we value gravity when it hinders our movement; we value other
> people when we miss them; we value the local government when our freedom
is
> threatened and we value ideas when we find they help us understand or give
us a
> sense of harmony.
>
>
>
> First of all, I see two perspectives that need to be understood and
> reconciled in explaining the MOQ. The primary one which is empirical
> is the perspective represented by the equation Quality = Experience.
>
> Mark 8-5-04: Experience is of a Dynamic flux. The flux itself cannot be
> defined or encapsulated by patterned descriptions, for descriptions are
themselves
> derived rom the Dynamic flux. So, now we have two modes of experience; the
> Dynamic and the Static.
> The Dynamic flux is undifferentiated while the Static patterns are
> differentiation's.
> These two modes form a relationship: Coherence.
> To be coherent is to adopt a relationship between patterned,
differentiated
> experiences that do not become too stable nor to chaotic. Dynamic flux is
not
> chaotic - the Dynamic flux is, ultimately, the source of harmony between
> patterned relationships.
> When you say Quality is experience, what i fell you should rather say is
that
> Quality determines our experience as patterned coherence.
>
> The second perspective is represented by Quality = Reality. The
> equating of Quality and Reality is not empirical to the extent that we
> don't simply mean "Experience" when we say "Reality," but rather
> Quality = Reality is an evolutionary theory.
>
> Mark 8-5-04: The Dynamic flux is immediate, undifferentiated experience.
> Theories, of what ever nature, are patterned. Patterned theories are good
or not
> so good depending on their coherence - how they hang together. Because
> evolutionary theory hangs together very well, we say it has Quality? But
this is to
> say it's patterning is coherent or is more coherent than other theories
which
> explain the history of living organisms.
> Thus, your distinction between Quality as experience and as reality is
> problematic because there really is no distinction between experience and
what is
> real. All reality is shades of coherence, and coherence appears to be
> increasing.
> Are the visions of a mad man real?
> Yes, they are.
> Are they coherent?
> Maybe not as coherent as other ideas and visions, and we may evaluate
these
> in terms of harmony and beauty.
>
> (In the MOQ Experience
> also equals Reality but this is a postulate used to understand reality
> rather than empirically based.)
>
> Mark 8-5-04: You recognise this. The problem is your divorce of experience
> from reality.
> If you think about this you can distinguish raving ranting incoherent
> patterns from coherent harmonic ones?
>
> The difference between the two
> perspectives is experiencing a value pattern such as gravity directly
> as a pulling down on one's body (Quality = Experience) versus
> experiencing gravity as the pattern of experience or inference where we
> recognize that all things around us are pulled to the ground, too
> (Quality = Reality). Here I intend to focus on the evolutionary
> perspective of understanding Reality in terms of Quality.
>
> Mark 8-5-04: The rest of your post is now going to suffer from these
initial
> problems?
> Your initial paragraphs are very important for they reveal some
fundamental
> misconceptions regarding the MoQ. I hope this helps?
>
> I'll begin by putting Quality aside for now to focus on what a pattern
> is.
>
> Mark 8-5-04: You see? If we accept the initial corrections then we have
> already hit trouble?
> I've done this myself and it hurts, because it saps the gumption right out
of
> you?
> But please don't worry Steve, it's worth it.
> May i return to this post later and take a look at the problems of
substance?
> Substance can be abandoned all together once patterns are in place.
>
> All the best,
> Mark
>
> I think that understanding reality in terms of patterns rather
> than in terms of substance and mind is an idea that one can use
> regardless of whether or not one accepts Pirsig's Reality = Quality
> postulate. I think that there are philosophers out there who consider
> themselves "patternists" though I couldn't name any. At any rate, I'd
> like to show what I mean by viewing reality (sq) in terms of patterns
> and then show how Quality explains patterns to give a more complete
> picture of Reality. In other words, a patterns view does not require a
> metaphysical grounding but certainly benefits from a grounding in
> Quality.
>
> The clearest example that I might come up with for what I mean by a
> pattern is a river. If we try to define a river in terms of substance,
> "you can't step into the same river twice," but as a pattern, a river
> has a fairly stable existence with a recognizable structure. It's
> flowing "changingness" is even part of that structure, so it is without
> contradiction that we can call a river a "static pattern" even though a
> river flows. A river is not as stable as the patterns of molecules
> that we call rocks in some ways since we can move a rock to another
> location and all it's recognized properties will be maintained, but a
> river is more stable than a rock in other ways since forces that can
> break a rock into pebbles may only temporarily disrupt a river or
> divert its course. The rock better fits the concept of substance and
> is more real than a river in a substance-based metaphysics, but it is
> not more real than the rock in a pattern-based metaphysics. Using a
> patterns approach to reality, we might say that the rock is more stable
> but the river is more versatile, though relative to higher level
> patterns both are very stable and not very versatile.
>
> Patterns can have far weaker correlations with substance than a river
> does. We can think of gravity as a pattern though gravity has
> virtually no properties associated with substance. There are different
> ways in which we can do so. As a pattern of behavior of physical
> objects (which are themselves inorganic patterns), gravity is an
> inorganic pattern. As a symbol standing for this inorganic pattern in
> thought and communication, "gravity" is a social structure which is
> used in structures of thought. Structures of thought which we call
> ideas are recognized in the MOQ as intellectual patterns. So, a
> pattern-based metaphysics has no difficulty containing the forces
> described by physics nor the patterns of thought which are not
> influenced in the least by those forces.
>
> Platt didn't like the idea of thinking of a person as a pattern, but
> physically a person's atoms are exchanged with other atoms constantly
> while the pattern of arrangement of his cells is fairly stable. In
> Heraclitus' view, we never interact with the same person twice. But the
> pattern of a given person persists despite the ongoing exchanging of
> atoms and despite changes associated with the biological patterns of
> growing or aging and despite changes in the patterns of behavior
> identifiable as participation in social roles and despite changing
> patterns of thought. Despite all these changes, there is a structure
> called a person that persists as the river persists in spite of its
> flowing nature or changes in it's course. And like the river, our
> concept of a person includes the changes I've described above. Lack of
> change in the pattern of a person means death.
>
> (When Pirsig uses the phrase "static pattern" I don't think that he
> means to exclude change or to associate change with Dynamic Quality. I
> think the word static is used simply to distinguish static and Dynamic
> Quality and to associate static Quality with patterns, but "static
> patterns" may be redundant since I see patterns as static only in the
> sense that they are patterns. They represent structures or
> relationships that can include change as a river is constantly flowing,
> yet these structures are static in the sense that the patterns of flow
> persist over time.)
>
> Up to this point I've talked about patterns with minimal reference to
> Quality in part to point out that an introduction to the MOQ can begin
> with an explanation of the four types of patterns rather than the
> metaphysical postulate of Quality. (I would also recommend that in
> trying to explain the MOQ to someone who has not read Pirsig that
> patterns may be the best place to start.) But once one does postulate
> that Quality = Reality, the types of static patterns become even more
> powerful in explaining reality because one can then understand how
> values and much of mind can also be understood in terms of patterns and
> how types of patterns can be examined in light of knowledge of the
> direction of the evolutionary arrow to identify moral and immoral human
> behavior. This is because all the structures I've discussed can be
> understood as value relationships.
>
> As Pirsig demonstrated, a cause and effect relationship like A causes B
> can be just as sensibly reworded as B values precondition A. The
> pattern of gravity for example can be thought of as a preference that
> is extremely reliable like the pattern of me ordering General Tso's
> Chicken whenever he goes out to a Chinese restaurant (i.e. the pattern
> of preference for chicken is part of the collection of patterns that
> constitute me). So patterns are maintained as valuations. Thus, all
> patterns are really patterns of value.
>
> I don't know whether what I have said will be controversial or seem too
> obvious to have been said. I'm interested in your thoughts.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Tue May 11 2004 - 20:55:19 BST