From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Jul 31 2004 - 00:33:41 BST
Hi Dan, DM, all,
Thanks for the thoughts. I'm feeling better every day.
On 30 Jul 2004 at 1:20, Dan Glover wrote:
>Platt quotes Pirsig:
>No. "And beyond that is an even more compelling reason; societies
and
>thoughts and principles themselves are no more than sets of static
>patterns. These patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to
>Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that." (Lila, 13)
>
>msh asks anyone:
>Then how did the bio level arise out of the inorganic? Wasn't this
>in response to DQ? If not, then DQ can't be the ontological ONE,
and
>the MOQ goes out the window, no?
Dan comments:
In Anders' and Platt's LILA quote it's stated that societies and
thoughts, etc. "can't by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic
Quality." A living being is composed of four static levels. Inorganic
and biological patterns of value can be detected with scientific
instruments. Social and intellectual patterns of value cannot. It
seems to me that inorganic and biological patterns of value can
perceive and adjust to Dynamic Quality whereas social and
intellectual patterns of value have nothing in common with the lower
levels except evolutionary history. Those patterns do not exist in a
state that can perceive and adjust to Dynamic Quality by themselves.
They have to rely on the support of inorganic and biological levels.
msh says:
Then this means that only scientifically detectable patterns have a
direct relationship with DQ. Wouldn't this attribute to
matter/energy a kind of quality precedence over mind/ideas? This
also would seem to imply a time lag between the evolution of matter
(Objects) and mind (Subjects), with objects deriving from Quality,
then subjects deriving from objects. So that, until sensate beings
evolved, reality consisted of Quality-driven objects, and no subjects
at all. It almost seems like minds, societies and ideas are merely
afterthoughts of Quality (Creation). Or accidents.
I'm not sure what this means, if it's right. But I think I see where
there might be some metaphysical justification for the "individual"
level suggested by Platt and David Morey. I have to think more, and
will wait for comments.
As always, feedback by anyone will be appreciated.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' 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 Jul 31 2004 - 00:27:29 BST