From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 05 2004 - 21:17:49 BST
Paul:It may be
that the meaning of death can be broadened to refer to the loss of the
ability to respond to Dynamic Quality. I don't know.
DM: Being alive is having a future, being dead is to cease to be
able to make one's possibilities actual in the world, at least
from those belonging to one's present life, does SQ imply
the possibility of one's possibilities reemerging to become
actual again? If I die you will not get any more of the many
emails that at this moment exist as my very own possibility.
Possibility=DQ I would suggest. But maybe DQ transcends
the world of finite/actual SQ. If DQ is real what is the ontological status
of the DQ possibilities that are forsaken in the living of one
particular and finite life? As a collection of SQ/DQ an individual
has no permanance because the collection falls apart and ceases
to be the collection known as David Morey it just falls back
into less complex patterns, a pile of bio-carbons. But DQ is nothing
as you say, it is not troubled by mortality, something we all suspect about
our existence because mortality applies only to patterns.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paul@turnerbc.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 3:18 PM
Subject: RE: MD The individual in the MOQ
> Hi Platt
>
> In the last post I questioned the role of individuals in the process of
> evolution and, in particular, the notion that individuals cause
> evolution and this needs a little more explanation. I haven't the time
> to give this the amount of clarity I would like, but I wanted to add a
> little more to it here by way of summary and perhaps conclusion.
>
> We may speak of a "step" in evolution. By this we may mean when latching
> of new patterns occurs sufficiently to maintain that pattern's existence
> with some stability. Just how the completion of this step can be
> precisely defined is debatable but not at issue here. When such a step
> is noticed we may look to find the first instance of this new pattern
> and suggest that this is where and when the "evolution" first
> occurred/began and may even confuse this with the cause of evolution.
> Because the length of time from a new pattern emerging to the completion
> of such an evolutionary step is evidently shorter as we go up the
> levels, when it comes to intellect it is easier to determine a time and
> a place, and a person, with which to associate this evolutionary step.
> When a step takes decades, centuries, or millennia, as can happen with
> social, biological and inorganic advances it becomes harder to identify
> such an origin and so we may look more to a combination of factors which
> brought about evolution rather than an individual.
>
> What I am highlighting is that it is, to some degree, always a
> combination of factors which brings about evolution, even when we
> "pinpoint" an individual. For example, Pirsig wasn't born with the MOQ.
> Before he arrived at the theory, as an infant he learned which things to
> notice, he learned the English language, he gained an education, trained
> as a biochemist, studied Indian philosophy, experienced Native American
> mysticism with Dusenberry, taught freshman composition etc. All of these
> things, along with Dynamic Quality, shaped the MOQ. You can take any one
> of these things and trace its evolution back to a time when the
> individual called Robert Pirsig didn't exist, before the social pattern
> of the US existed, before the English language existed - all the way
> back. In this long, long view of things, I think you can see how it
> makes sense to view patterns as, in an important sense, independent of
> *particular* individuals.
>
> On the other hand (and I have not denied this throughout the dialogue),
> without society, and biology, and matter, there are no intellectual
> patterns. And you and I agree that all of these levels of patterns
> compose individuals who live and die, and who, whilst living, are an
> evolutionary relationship between Dynamic and static quality. It may be
> that the meaning of death can be broadened to refer to the loss of the
> ability to respond to Dynamic Quality. I don't know.
>
> But, finally, I really think it is important for you to appreciate that
> the individual is not containing the patterns. A glass contains water,
> when you pour out the water, the glass remains. If you "pour out" the
> patterns of an individual human, only Dynamic Quality remains, which
> doesn't contain anything. It is a slip back into SOM to begin with the
> existence of an individual who *has* experiences and therefore *has*
> patterns. It is also important to see that the patterns which compose an
> individual are changing and in a relationship with other patterns with
> boundaries that are also changing and so, as there is nothing fixed
> containing the patterns, an individual, as with everything, has
> permanence only by postulation.
>
> Anyway, once again, thanks for the dialogue.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Fri Aug 06 2004 - 00:06:17 BST