From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Sat Aug 28 2004 - 13:21:13 BST
Dear Mark M.,
You prefer (27 Aug 2004 20:05:50 -0400) something like 'harmonious relations
between patterns of value of different levels' to 'a good fit between
patterns of value of different levels' as a description of 'coherence'? Fine
with me too.
Mark 28-8-04: Hi Wim, looking good.
You didn't answer my question how the experience of 'coherence' relates to
the experiences of static quality and Dynamic Quality in your opinion, so I
will assume that it doesn't do so in the way that causes me problems ('a
different kind of experience that adds to or combines the experience of
static quality and Dynamic Quality').
Mark 28-8-04: I like this question Wim, it's very interesting. I do not know
how you would describe your experience of sq and DQ?
If we can say that some experiences are more static than others, like being
stuck in a prison cell with no stimulation for years on end, and if we can say
some experiences are more Dynamic than others, like riding a motorcycle fast
through open country, then how would the MOQ deal with these experiences other
than saying one is more static than the other, or one is more Dynamic than the
other?
Enquiry into experience of the Way indicates an optimum relationship between
two extremes of stasis and Dynamic - a relationship which paradoxically
actually opens up Dynamic experience for every moment. This relationship is
coherence.
'More coherence' (i.e. more harmony of lower level patterns of value with
higher level patterns of value) is then for me one of the criteria for
Dynamic Quality operating on a (lower) level: Better patterns of value
(those migrated farthest towards DQ) are those with more stability (a
relation of being more 'alike' a later version of itself), more versatility
(a relation between a pattern of value and its changing environment) and
more coherence (a relation between a pattern of value and patterns of value
of higher levels).
Does that fit you? (-;
Mark 28-8-04: Sounds like we are coming together at this point.
What do I mean with a 5th level?
The MoQ is in principle open to the emergence of a 5th level, a type of
patterns of value that differs from 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th level types and
that can mediate between DQ and 4th level patterns of value. From a 4th
level perspective 5th level patterns of value cannot be described (just as
4th level patterns of value cannot be grasped in 3rd level terms, as
habitual behaviour). If it could, it wouldn't be a new level. Does it exist?
I don't know. Maybe enlightened individuals experience it, but are sadly and
tragically unable to communicate the experience to us, who are still mired
in 4th level patterns of value?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
Mark 28-8-04: I see. Most intriguing. Of course, i cannot provide an argument
against this description of 5th level because any description would be 4th
level and inappropriate. Well done Wim! ;) One interesting point though: If
coherence is a workable concept, it can be applied to 5th level relationships with
the 4th level, just as is can be applied to 3rd level relationships with 4th
level patterns.
Pirsig suggests that the code af art is above the intellectual level. How do
you view this?
All the best,
Mark
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 : Sat Aug 28 2004 - 13:21:17 BST