Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Sun, 28 Jun 1998 19:22:28 +0100
Jonathan. Bo and Squad
OK, I'll try to clear up the mess regarding the
distort/confuse/obfuscate issue, as it appears to me. There seems to be
an
assumption that it is NOT possible to express oneself clearly and
precisely when discussing ithe MoQ or some other
'complex' issue. This is untrue. When Theo wrote:
"I'm convinced that the language is available to us to achieve
recognition without the need to distort it."
he was absolutely correct.
If a phrase or word is used which deviates from its accepted or usual
sense then the context in which it is used should be
explained. An example:
Jonathan wrote:
"I'm extremely familiar with current biochemical parlance, and the term
molecular "RECOGNITION" is commonplace. We talk about how antibodies
recognise antigens, enzymes recognise substrates, various control
proteins recognise specific DNA sequences ... In all cases you can
substitute "react with" - consider the expressions synonymous."
Recognition, in the sense that you are using it, may be commonplace
within biochemist circles, but the majority of people are
not biochemists, chemists, physicists etc. and its unexplained use in
this sense is confusing and anthropocentric. As you
indicate above, "RECOGNIZE" is being employed to illustrate a particular
and specific usage. A couple of lines to indicate
this, as you have done, clarifies your meaning and avoids unnecessary
semantic disputes.
What may be of use, especially with regard to the issues we are
discussing and the usage of words with respect to those
issues, is building up some form of lexicon which indicates the sense in
which a phrase, word or expression is used.
==================================================
Jonathan:
"Horse, you can't stand on a giants shoulder's wielding an axe,
especially if the target is his head!
I consider the Giant as a still-dynamic being. I want to take advantage
of his immense power.
Where I consider his behaviour inappropriate, or even potentially
destructive, the best I can do is whisper in his ear and hope
that I am right, and that he will listen. Isn't this was Pirsig did?"
I don't think so. I think that Pirsig recognized that the Giant is deaf
to anything except that which is expressed in (and on) its
own terms. As this would appear to be the case and considering the
various disparities, an axe in the head is quite appropriate
in order to gain it's attention. I also don't think that either Lila or
Zen are whispers. They are bold statements of reason in a
forceful and level tone. I've assumed that when you refer to the Giant
you mean SOM. If this is the case then, personally, I
would consider it to be anything but dynamic. It is one of the most
static patterns in existence (although not completely static)
and what I would prefer to do is subvert its immense power.
The only Giants shoulders I want to stand on are Pirsig's and in this
case I will be waving the brightest torch I can find.
========================================================
BO:
"Your two models seem to be an exact description of the alternatives
that have materialized, but are they really mutually
exclusive? I have possibly adhered to the first in the sense that once a
new static level have come into existence it is
not dynamic any longer and also different from its parent level, but I
can accept the second model as well; there is a dynamic
element behind all stability."
I don't think that they are mutually exclusive as such. I think the
first model is wrong (separate static levels with DQ external)
and the second model (seperate levels which are, to some degree dynamic)
is still wrong, but close and in need of
modification.
My point here was that, in the models that I described, if each level is
completely separate and discrete then in order for one
level to influence or interact with another level there would have to be
some separate means by which this can occur as their
separateness precludes interaction. The inference of separateness and
detachment IN THOSE TWO MODELS demands this
and unnecessarily introduces problems similar to those of the Cartesian
Mind/Matter model. The way I see it is that all patterns
of value vary only in the effect that they produce in the 'phenomenal'
world. Biological PoV's are the result of interactions at
an inorganic level. BioPoV's interact to produce SocPoV's such as
families, cultures, churches, governments, laws, etc. and
the interaction of both BioPoV's and SocPov's result in IntPoV's. This
may seem slightly at odds with the currently accepted
interpretation, but think about it. If SocPoV's interact to produce
IntPoV's then how and where do IntPoV's manifest
themselves. They are not disembodied patterns floating freely somewhere,
they exist as part of what we perceive as other
creatures which possess intellectual capabilities - be they humans,
dolphins, elephants etc. It is the commonality of these
patterns of value that produce the phenomena - at whatever level you
wish - which we perceive.
BO:
"And I cannot see that it requires an interaction "mechanism" as it does
in SOM where - for example - an impulse to act
supposedly is born in the subjective mind before it is executed in the
objective matter realm."
I'm not saying that it is necessary to intellectualise before an action
is performed. Biology can look after most aspects of it's
existence without any help from society or intellect. General survival
mechanisms are a prime example.But if each level is
completely distinct then by what process does intellect influence
social, biological or inorganic patterns.
If the levels are continuous then it is possible for a thought
(intellect) to manifest itself in physical action (biology). Whether
this needs to go through SocPoV's is debateable but would depend
entirely upon the action in question. There would probably
be some aspect of conformance with or reaction against social patterns
of value.
There is continuity and mutual interdependence within the model that I
am proposing - harmony if you want. The two models
that I described in my earlier post appear, to me, to produce a
disharmonious and disparate view of the value levels
BECAUSE there is no intermingling of the various PoV's. This doesn't
mean that definite patterns are not discernable within
any of the models, as it is obvious that they are. But it becomes less
and less distinct at the boundaries of the PoV's.
BO:
"You ask: How does Dynamic Q interact with the levels in order that
there is some form of change/evolution within any particular level? I
think there is a slight misunderstanding of what "change within"
means. To start with matter. Once the IPoV was established (through
Big Bang or otherwise) no change to these value patterns has taken
place. The exotic particles that live for nanoseconds (when enough
energy is invested) aren't new, but as much IPoV as the good old
proton (or its constituents)."
By using the phrase 'change within' I am referring to that aspect of
PoV's that produces change/evolution or where this
occurs. As I see it, change is the process of producing difference,
whilst evolution is the process of becoming better (!) -
others may disagree with me on this point but it is probably a
relatively minor semantic distinction. If it is the case that all
inorganic patterns were fixed at the Big Bang, as you suggest, then it
would not have been possible for BioPoV's to evolve
from IPoV's. Your distinction may refer to the constituents of matter -
particles of some form - but surely this distinct particle-
only based model is a SOM construct and is at odds with recent
developments in Quantum theory and the MoQ. The IPoV
level is based around the patterns of value AND their relationships, as
is the case at all other levels. Even if we accept that
inorganic patterns of value are nothing more than distinct particles
(which I don't) then it is the change in relationships that is
the DQ aspect and the dynamic aspect of this is the convergence of
Inorganic PoV's to produce Biological PoV's - evolution.
What about the formation of the different elements and the decay of
isotopes. There may or may not be DQ in a micro sense
(discrete and separate particles if such a thing exists) although this
is highly debateable and depends on a precise (and probably
flawed) SOM definition, but DQ seems to be apparent and obvious at a
macro inorganic level.
BO:
"When change to matter came about it resulted in a totally new value
level - Biology. And here the same applies. If a strange
life form will be found to have evolved on a far away planet, it is
BiPoV as good as any one found on earth. Change to static
Biological patterns ended up as Social value."
But biological PoV's are founded on inorganic PoV's and exacly where one
finishes and the other starts is indistinct. To draw
arbitrary lines and declare that one side is inorganic and the other
organic is a SOM classification fudge (the platypus). Better
to think in terms of fractal boundaries - indistinct and continuous.
BO:
"The Brujo of LILA did not bring about new SoPoV value. All he did was
introduce new ways for his tribe to orientate itself
relative to the new power in the region: the US government. "Evolution"
within theSocial value realm became the Intellectual
value level, and to apply the same logic here: Ideas seem to have
alternated between the subject-object limitations ever since
that value level was established."
The Brujo appears to have been the seed around which change coalesced or
the point from which disturbance of the SocPoV's
spread, the result of which was an evolutionary move away from stagnant
SocPoV's which produced an apparantly better
value pattern. The term 'Better' here is presumably in terms of the
overall SocPoV and not necessarily the local patterns?
BO:
"Finally, my proposal for a DQ/SQ split (minimalistic) definition is
CHANGE versus PERMANENCE."
Aren't we getting back into the Either/Or, Subject/Object split here.
Permanence implies some form of absolute or frozen
pattern which can never change. If a value pattern is permanent then how
does change ever occur. The Brujo example
illustrates the lack of permanence at the social level and I think this
will be the same within all the other levels too.
One final thing that I would bring up is the idea of 'better'. How do we
judge when change is better and by reference to what
criteria is this judgement made? Just a thought!
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy. It was what got written
down. It was as simple as that!" Sir Sam Vimes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST