Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Wed, 22 Oct 1997 04:15:05 +0100
Hi! Maggie and TLS,
Hettinger wrote:
>
> Gene Kofman wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > When we move from one society/culture to another we still continue
> for
> > quite awhile to follow social patterns of the society we left
> behind. Of
> > course, many of the patterns don't work in the new social
> environment,
> > which brings about a lot of DQ opportunities.
> > <snip>
>
> Does anybody see a distinction here between DQ, the "source of all
> things, the
> pre-intellecutal cutting edge of reality" and the instance of DQ that
> Gene
> mentioned above--a "contained" type of DQ that exists because of the
> interaction of different static social PoV's (each of which has a
> different
> mix of influence of the others, and therefore a somewhat different
> "direction", but still, in general, is somehow bound to be part of the
> direction that the social level as a whole shares)? Something that
> would
> seem, to all appearances from within the social level, to be
> indistinguishable
> from DQ, but from without would appear to be a small dynamic influence
> within
> the general influence of static social patterns?
>
> (I can see that I need to get a handle on this "direction" concept
> that I want
> to use without being able to demonstrate it. Doug, are my contexts
> clear at
> all?)
>
Maggie,
I think Gene is seeing a single DQ and that you are inferring something
extra from his "...brings about a lot of DQ opportunities." To me, Gene
says DQ has the opportunity for many QEs.
Perhaps Bo could help us here, more than anyone else.
>From my contextual perspective:
Quality has two divisions: Static and Dynamic. All of us should know
the purpose and examples of evidence for each. This is pure MoQ -- our
(TLS) Metaphysics of Quality (The Reality of Quality).
DQ is ubiquitous and universal and not definable by finite intellect in
any context, PERIOD! However, for me and my own finite intellect, I
like to think of it as the ultimate (unbounded) context in which I can
cast my SPoV repertoires. When I do this, it makes it much easier for
me not to forget that ALL SPoVs are in DQ ALL the time (acknowledging
'time' is yet undefined). Again, I know this is my artificial
representation in a human rational form that is just for my own
convenience -- it's a crutch.
MoQ gives us four SPoVs and five codes of morality thus:
SPoVs from the bottom rung of the ladder, up:
SPoV1 - Inorganic
SPoV2 - Biological
SPoV3 - Social
SPoV4 - Intellectual
Five codes of morality bottom-up, quoting Pirsig on page 345 of the
Bantum paperback:
"The Metaphysics of Quality says there are not just two codes of morals,
there are actually five:
Code1 - inorganic-chaotic,
Code2 - biological-inorganic,
Code3 - social-biological,
Code4 - intellectual-social, and
Code5 - Dynamic-static.
"This last, the Dynamic-static code, says what's good in life isn't
defined by society or intellect or biology. What's good is freedom from
domination by any static pattern, but that freedom doesn't have to be
obtained by the destruction of the patterns themselves."
Finally, we have Bodvar's imperative element of the MoQ: The Quality
Event. Without this, nothing works.
To review: MoQ, two divisions of quality, DQ undefinable, static
quality has four divisions and five codes of morality, and Bo's QEs.
Pirsig also discusses analogues: subject-object-Quality (SOQ) and
subject-object-value (sVo).
That to me is our MoQ context! That is what we have to work with.
Next we have some rules (axioms, postulates, et al.). Pirsig gave us
many of them, but we are in the process of understanding those and we
will probably form more. An example is from the SODV paper where he
says that objects precede subjects and the QE occurs when the subject
becomes aware of the object and latches the interrelationship as a
SPoV. (I expect to get beat-up on this last sentence. Take your best
shot! :-) )
Other examples are: higher levels morally (and conditionally) dominate
lower levels. Lower levels may not immorally dominate higher levels.
Higher levels are obliged to not destroy their own supporting level, but
must use provisional, incremental QEs to evolve their own supporting
level (this does not preclude large changes like the Zuni brujo), all in
the 'context' and under the tension of DQ. DQ's goal here is 'better.'
QEs assess better (within a local context or limited set of local
contexts) and latch a SPoV (or an incremental modification to a SPoV)
upon positive assessment of the presence of 'better.' We can list many
rules (SPoVs) like these.
Where I get confused on the levels and their contexts is when I hear
some of TLS say that the lower level is not 'aware' of its next higher
level. I find many examples in Lila where Phaedrus asserts just the
opposite. So I am unsure if I am clear or unclear on this. We need to
thrash it out, and decide one way or the other (the SOM-dumb approach)
or acknowledge the potency of Bohr's complementarity in helping us
combine apparently opposing concepts (e.g., particle-wave) into one
complementary concept (e.g., awareness-up AND awareness-down). This is
where I feel the weakest right now.
Another time when I get confused is when I hear some of you (Magnus most
recently) ask the question, "Are the levels absolute or otherwise?" I
can tell you my predilections, but I fear they may still have one foot
in SOM-land. Personally, I still have a long way to go here.
Back to your question...
Maggie, I think we heard you asking for more sub-categories of DQ. If
we do that, we begin to define DQ. I think Pirsig, Bo, Diana, and a lot
of other people feel that is not a good thing. Remember, they thought
my AoQ was an attempt to do this? For now, I agree. My intellect wants
to do it even though it knows it (probably) can't. Besides, we are
still having enough trouble with static quality, and the meaning,
teaching and application of MoQ.
What I see in your example above from Gene and your question about it,
using 'context' as one way of viewing it is...
Different cultures in the social static pattern level have their own
different social SPoVs. There are potentially an infinity of possible
cultures (and other social patterns too), and we can put each/all of
them contextually in the social level.
But they are all in the same DQ! DQ affects all of them all the time!
There are no sub-DQs. Now, if you expected an absolute (just one)
'better' WITHIN a level you are in trouble because THAT is SOM! That is
what Einstein attempted with his GUT. An absolute better means
determinism without indeterminism. The way the Eskimos deal with an act
of murder is different from the way the Islamic tribes do it. Each
tribe under the MoQ reality would use its corresponding intellectual
level to help the social level become 'better.' I think Pirsig gives
another example where the wrong levels are immorally controlling the
social level. From our perspective, they get something which is NOT
better.
MoQ constructs a set of moral codes which allows a higher level to
DOMINATE a lower level (more confusion for me here: whether one lower
level or multiples). Pirsig constructed the MoQ this way so that new
paradigm-shifting memes could overthrow the confinement of older, worn
SPoV ensembles. This seems like a paradox.
What he is giving us is balance between static and dynamic quality.
This is critical! One of our most important classes of SPoVs is the
class that seeks balance as an element of 'better.' We balance between
the total chaos (I think we perceive chaos as 'chaotic' because our
intellect is finite .) of unfettered DQ and the hell of stasis. So we
get something like this complement(chaos,stasis), and/or
complement(determinism,indeterminism). The result is a moral balance of
freedom and confinement which optimizes MoQ performance in REALITY.
This is a reason why I am so excited about MoQ.
Maggie, your contexts are unclear (to me) within the MoQ if you see more
than one DQ. Push back if you disagree.
Many truths to you Maggie and all of TLS,
Doug Renselle.
> Maggie
>
> PS hmm... maybe I just defined social quality.
>
> --
> post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
-- 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 - 16:42:06 CEST