Hettinger (hettingr@iglou.com)
Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:10:44 +0100
Anders Nielsen wrote:
> > I would think that the aliens might be able to come to understand the MoQ
> and
> > use it if it is valuable, just as when one human society meets another
> human
> > society it can adopt those patterns it finds that are valuable to it,
> often
> > leapfrogging to new levels of capability without having to go through all
> the
> > steps (and structures) that the original society had to create.
> >
> > The aliens might not be able to even see (observe, comprehend) the human
> > intellectual patterns (including MoQ) at all, not having their own
> similar
> > intellectual patterns to observe them with. The aliens might not be
> able to
> > observe the social patterns, not having their own human social patterns
> to
> > compare them to. The aliens might not be able to observe the biological
> > patterns for the same reason. It seems, though, that any aliens who
> > originated within our galaxy (or our physical system, any thing that we
> would
> > define as a "place") might be able to recognize the patterns of the
> inorganic
> > level, and be able to observe, from them, that here on Earth, something
> exists
> > that is different from their own habitat, (or maybe not, if the changes
> in the
> > inorganic level are in a different spectrum than they are used to
> observing).
> >
> > Whether the intellectual patterns of the MoQ are useful to the aliens,
> the
> > levels and structures that MoQ describes would still exist. And the
> aliens
> > could make use of them to the extent that they are perceivable and
> valuable.
> >
> > I think, however, that it is more likely that we will be able to apply
> MoQ to
> > the study of of the existence of the aliens than than the other way
> around.
>
> What I meant wasn't really if they could use the 4 levels of static quality
> patterns, because they're very obviously human-centric.
OK. I'm with you there
> But is the central point of MoQ:
> That Quality is all there is, and the central division between static and
> dynamic quality.
>
> (the central point as I see it...I don't put much value to the 4 levels,
> because they're too fuzzy and human-specific)
>
> If aliens wouldn't be able to describe themselves that way, I don't think
> it's proper to call the MoQ a metaphysics...Then it would be more of a
> "conditions humans are under when describing the world" or even "a nice
> mental bucket, which humans can fit pretty much all experiences into", and
> then I think I'll give up TLS alltogether and go research if Kant did
> foresee the epistemological problems raised by QM or not (or something
> similar). Because to be a metaphysics means to be the foundation of all
> other thinking, and if MoQ doesn't live up to this (or at least have a very
> good reason why not) I don't think it would be worth pursuing.
I see the concept "metaphysics" as a human intellectual pattern. And the
concept of "alien" seems to me to be an entity that does not share "our"
patterns.
The reality MoQ describes, however, would seem to operate the same for the
aliens, at least as far as inorganic processes at some rudimentary point.
> Fortunately (for me..Kant is so much harder to read than Pirsig) I do
> believe aliens would be able to describe their own experiences in static
> quality/dynamic quality terms, or at least if not they would be quite
> different in their workings than we are (and in that event I guess pretty
> much any theory had to be rethought)..
>
> And I don't think we'd be able to communicate very much with them, if that
> was the case.
I agree.
> [...]
> > I think we already have machines that can perceive quality. We
> certainly have
> > social and intellectual patterns that perceive quality and make decisions
> > (allow static Quality or even Dynamic Quality to operate at a particular
> > balance point) thereupon. The human individual is not the choicemaker
> here.
> > The human individual is often a cog in the wheel, a cell in the organism.
>
> As far as I see it, the only thing able to percieve dynamic quality is
> humans or rather: sentient beings, but not societies, and certainly not
> atomic matter! (saying that dynamic quality for the inorganic static
> patterns is the quantum flux, is pure nonsense to me...Im sorry to sound so
> harsh, but really I don't understand what people mean when they say this).
>
> and to back this point I will quote Lila, p.192 chap. 13 (Corgi Books
> paperback edition):
>
> [here pirsig is talking about the (im)moralness of the death-penalty]
>
> "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."
I'm glad you brought Pirsig into this. This particular concept is really
interesting. I'm going to say two things. Both of them may be contradicted by
the statement above, so I feel like I should do some serious justifying, BUT it
would be weeks before I could do it justice. I'm going to drop these fish
into the barrel of the Lila Squad's knowledge (before which I am constantly in
awe) and see if they swim.
1. I firmly believe that all patterns are affected by DQ. Perhaps it is the
verb "percieve" that is the problem. I think that you, and Pirsig in the
statement above, are using "perceive" as a reference to the uniquely human
ability of being aware of being affected. And in that particular sense,
lower-level organisms and entities do not share the ability to operate at that
level.
2. For most of the history of the intellectual level (beginning when Adam and
Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil), it seems to have
been true that human individuals, making use of the knowledge stored in their
societies, have experienced DQ, stored that dynamic difference in personal
intellectual patterns, and made a difference in the social patterns. These
were individual people. This is where it mostly happened. This is, I
believe, what Pirsig is describing above.
Something has changed.
It happened in the second half of this century.
Groups of people no longer have the same reactions as they did. The forces
affecting them are different. Groups of people (not individuals, but
functioning groups) seem to have awareness of Dynamic Quality.
In the past, it was common that groups had "leaders", and the concept of
loyalty was dominant. This is very different from the functioning of the
common "effective groups" models are so prevalent in business and education
today.
It was, I believe, common knowledge that groups were more conservative in their
decisions than individuals were.
In 1961, James Stoner decided to test this belief. He looked at groups of
people who engaged in discussion (and intellectual/social experience) of an
issue, and their consequent decisions. To the surprise of many, he found out
that "the decisions chosen by the group were by and large riskier than those
selected before discussion". This was termed "risky shift", and has been the
object of much study (most of which I have yet to read).
Although one explanation of this is the fact that the group processes perhaps
hadn't been studied enough, and Stoner discovered new knowledge, I think that
he actually documented the change. Groups of people commonly functioned
within the realm of social/biological interactions, with individual leaders
functioning in the intellectual/social realm. Now, that kind of group
function still exists, but there is another, one in which the group works with
intellectual/social interactions and patterns, and structures itself to be open
to Dynamic Quality.
At any rate, groups are either one or the other. Someone in LS was talking
about the shift in perception, something about being able to focus on one
level at a time. (Sorry, I'll find it later). Groups do this also. They
are either centered in the social/biological, in which case they function more
and more conservatively, OR they are centered in the intellectual/social, in
which case their functions are more and more "risky" (from a social point of
view).
I'm late for school. Gotta go.
Maggie
PS my point is that groups experience DQ.
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:05 CEST