From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Mon Aug 02 2004 - 15:24:44 BST
Greetings Paul:
>Hi Mel
>Mel said:
>Each level of evolution that has emerged from the level before, becomes
>less constrained and capable of variation that is baroque and rococo in
>flavor compared to the level below. However, now that we see the
>characteristic of Emergence as the spoor of Dynamic Quality, we can
>actively choose to pursue the dynamic 'vector' without getting caught up
>in the more static turbulence, the interesting, but insignificant
>baroque and rococo 'decoration' of intellect. We can aim at the gap in
>intellect where the next level will realize itself in emergence beyond
>intellect.
>Paul:
>An interesting post, Mel, but I'm not sure what your main point is.
>Is it about the parallels between "emergence" and Dynamic evolution?
mel:
YES!
In "explorations of reality," it is not infrequent that discoveries or
insights in one area inform, contrast, or confirm insights in another area.
That statement seems appallingly over-generalized in our currently
ever more over-specialized world, but bear with me.it is limitations
of our monkey-brain intellect, not limitations of reality.
Just as contrast from a second light source helps sharpen images in
photography, so to does the technique of an outside confirmation of
an operational mechanism help strip unneeded steps away in arriving
at the core of a thing you are studying. (This mechanism gave us
us calculus from algebra.)
By analogy to diamond cutting, where is the cleavage plane that allows
us to waste as little energy as possible to best identify the Dynamic in
each level? Probably around the Emergent. (hypothesis for now)
>Is it that intellectual argument about the MOQ's finer points is
>"insignificant decoration?"
mel:
The insignificant decoration I refer to is the Static Accumulation
concomitant with intellection on nearly any subject. Universities
are full of people who make careers of placing the decoration on
any branch of knowledge and pretending they are contributing
significantly to the body of knowledge.
>Do you see (some of) these discussions as a frivolous adornment to
>Pirsig's system?
mel:
Speaking for myself.such discussions must necessarily contain some
amount of "off-track" material because that is how we learn to relate
our personal world experience to something new. Frivolity is a personal
judgement.my very existence is probably frivolous to the "Beautiful
People" sunning themselves in St. Tropez ;-)
>Is it that you think we are arguing for the sake of self-esteem?
mel:
LOL.that is probably more true of many of us than we'd like to
admit, but largely - absent hot-button issues, it seems a genuine
group of explorers. Pirsig and the Moquanauts.
>Are (some of) our discussions holding the MOQ back?
mel:
Only when we bog down in personal ideologies, but on the whole
I'd say quite the opposite. We are still reaching for fluency as
individuals until we "GET IT", then we should burn everything
we've written to avoid creating a DOGMA of Quality.
Moving from SOM to MoQ is a pretty tectonic shift in the world
view we are taught to hold. Staring out my window this morning,
while sitting at a red light, I looked out at the bank and shopping
mall. I thought how little I get MoQ in daily life and the bricks and
mortar at which I stared and the institutions supporting them would
have no appreciation of the MoQ distinctions.
Especially since my own ability to articulate it as something vital
is not yet very well developed. The few discussions I've had with
non-ZMM-ers have been very unrewarding, due to my poor choice
of how I've explained it.
>All of the above?
mel:
Your thoughts?
thanks--mel
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 : Mon Aug 02 2004 - 15:44:53 BST