From: Monkeys' tail or (elkeaapheefteen@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Dec 14 2002 - 18:15:27 GMT
Wim,
Ok here is something maybe it is nonsense I do not know, my problems with
degeneracy are purely intuitive I do not seem to be able to explain
rationally and with accuracy what my problem is. Maybe you can do something
with it;
the ten statements was a last desperate attempt to get new input on th
degeneray issue. I understand you do not understand my problems, you just
see it(degeneracy) as lower quality latching(lower level or less balance), I
have my reservations wether degeneracy is exactly that. It could be that I
am mixing up some things, like dynamic and biological quality, the crux of
where my understanding fails is that like I said earlier on the <moment of
truth>, the moment a change takes place this is a indifferent change, not
good nor bad.
I have doubts wether the latching of DQ determines it's <goodness>, the
balance between static patterns of value and dynamic forces maybe can
request a lower level latching for maintaining the balance or harmony and
therefore its overall power to latch and find strong foothold
When <overdoing the dynamic> let's say an intellectual idea, it can fall
into the wrong hands.
An intellectual idea in biological hands is less moral then an intellectual
idea in social hands which on the first look seemed immoral but is a
relative statement. So to latch on a lower level can mean to balance and to
harmonize, de-attachment and high(er) level latching is not necesarrily more
moral if balance comes into danger. The argument that the intellectual idea
is somehow more truth or better, more moral is not necessarily determinable
by means of intellectual level <instruments>. I am not saying this never is
the case but some intellectual ideas need the social and sometimes even
biological level for being latched at all.
That this latching seems immoral is obvious, but the question is to latch or
not to latch, it is more moral for an idea to be latched on a low level
instead of not being latched at all. What I am saying is that intellectual
ideas, the most moral ideas possible on an MOQ scale, also need some kind of
latching on a lower level. Not by means that they could not exist without
these levels but by means of balance and harmony and is therefore not
immoral per se.
You see the balance on a certain level I see balance throughout the levels
and I believe not only the balance should be maintained on a certain level,
but there needs to be an overall balance in the MOQ framework. This balance
might now and then need what seems to be degeneracy but is just the force
that harmonizes and integrates progression and our understanding of it.
Davor
>From: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: "MD" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD 10 statements: (for Wim on the degeneracy issue)
>Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 23:04:34 +0100
>
>Dear Davor,
>
>You express frustration in your posting of 9 Dec 2002 14:32:52 +0000, but I
>still don't know what to say about it (as I also wrote 8 Dec 2002 16:23:25
>+0100), because I don't understand what's the issue that bothers you.
>
>Degeneracy is a word that can be used to describe a lot of different
>phenomena in everyday speech, as David B. described 8 Dec 2002
>14:53:02 -0700. So what?
>Pirsig used it in a specific MoQ context. Building on Pirsig's usage,
>'degeneracy' in my version of the MoQ means falling back on a 'lower'
>static
>latch when a static pattern of value dissolves. A 'lower' static latch (a
>'worse' situation) can mean a different type of static latch when the
>pattern of value is 'degenerating' to a lower level. Or it can mean a less
>stable and less versatile pattern of value or less 'balance' between
>stability and versatility when judged from a higher level viewpoint, if the
>'degenerate' pattern of value still belongs to the same level.
>I have tried to answer the issue Erin formulated in his 8 Dec 2002
>13:00:09 -0500 posting in my posting of 8 Dec 2002 21:56:49 +0100.
>
>With friendly greetings,
>
>Wim
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 Dec 14 2002 - 18:18:54 GMT