From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Mar 24 2004 - 18:06:57 GMT
Hi Mark
Mark:That is to say, you are emerging
from the event stream, and heading towards DQ right now.
DM: Is there also a motion away from DQ and what would be the result
of that? A movement to SQ/repetition?
----- Original Message -----
From: <Valuemetaphysics@aol.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: MD SQ-SQ coherence and the Biosphere.
> Hi Mark,
>
> What is evolving at the inorganic level? At the biological level are you
> aware of any new species lately? I haven't seen much evolution at the
> social level since the Civil Rights Act. As for the intellectual level,
> nothing has evolved in philosophy that I know of since Pirsig published
> "Lila." All the really new stuff has come from science and technology.
> What I'm driving at is that according to the MOQ, only living beings can
> respond to DQ. Evolution now is human-driven and isn't occurring at all
> levels simultaneously as claim.
>
> Mark 24-03-04: In response, i would ask you to consider, for an
experiment, a
> different world?
> In this world, everything is evolving every second of the day, all around
> you. The Inorganic is evolving so slowly, as to appear to be standing
idle. The
> Organic is evolving faster, but you would have to live 1000 years to
notice it.
> The social is evolving faster still, but you have to look back on an
entire
> life span to see the detail. The intellectual is evolving daily with the
> publication of new ideas and concepts. (Science is Intellectual value.)
>
> >In
> > MoQ terms this is described in two ways: 1. The event stream (DQ).
(SODV)
> > 2. Static patterns migrating towards DQ. (Lila.)
> >
> > Static patterns emerge from DQ and yet are migrating towards DQ.
> > We may accommodate these two apparently contradictory points by
postulating
> > a relationship between SQ and DQ derived from experience: Coherence.
>
> As I said before, 'coherence' has to do with thoughts, not with
> relationships. (If you want to use 'coherence' as physicists do in
> describing laser light and such, it would be helpful to say so. But I
> don't know why you find it necessary to call upon scientific jargon to
> describe your theories. Pirsig uses good old plain English. :-)
>
> Mark 24-03-04: I honestly thought the term coherence was good old plain
> English. When thinking about stable impermanent structures i felt it was
helpful to
> call them coherent.
>
> > In the Metaphysics of Quality, (Value is a synonym for Quality, so in
the
> > above quote we may regard Value as Quality) Quality has two aspect, SQ
and
> > DQ. Therefore, to paraphrase: 'Our structured reality is preselected on
the
> > basis of a relationship between SQ and DQ.'
>
> I really don't see the significance of "relationship." If you split
> anything into two aspects or parts, there's bound to be a relationship
> between the parts.
>
> Mark 24-03-04: The significance of relationships between patterns is that
> they appear to become coherent. It can be argued that experience shows
this to be
> the point where DQ is at work.
> You are not only surrounded by, but participate IN evolution as it is
> happening right now. You are evolving right now. That is to say, you are
emerging
> from the event stream, and heading towards DQ right now. When this is
going well,
> your patterns are coherent. If you are playing tennis and hitting the ball
> well, you are an excellent player - coherent.
> If, as you suggest, only living things can respond to DQ, and there is no
> simultaneous evolution, then my position becomes untenable.
>
> > Thought patterns cannot deal with DQ, but thought patterns ARE patterns,
> > and share a relationship with DQ as described above: 1. The event stream
> > (DQ). (SODV) 2. Static patterns migrating towards DQ. (Lila.)
>
> About this migration of static patterns towards DQ. The only place I find
> Pirsig talking like this specifically is about Lila and patterns of life.
>
> "Lila is composed of static patterns of value and these patterns are
> evolving towards Dynamic Quality . . . All life is a migration of static
> patterns of quality toward Dynamic Quality." (Lila-11).
>
> Later Pirsig writes:
>
> "And beyond that is an even more compelling reason; societies and thoughts
> and principles themselves are no more than sets of static patterns. These
> patterns cannot by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only
> a living being can do that."
>
> So the 'migration' is limited to living beings whereas your thesis seems
to
> imply that its descriptive of the entire evolutionary process, including
> the evolution of the inorganic level. Something's amiss.
>
> > Mark 22-03-04: Thought is patterned. Patterns are migrating towards DQ.
>
> Patterns of life are migrating, not all patterns.
>
> Mark 24-03-04: If what you say is so, then my thesis is wrong.
>
> > Patterns emerge from DQ. These are accommodated in the term Coherence.
> > Coherence can be extreme - severe. This possibility is right outside
> > everyday experience, but when encountered, can be a revelation. An
example
> > would be to be in the presence of a master artist. The coherence of a
> > master can influence (raise coherence of) the open student dramatically.
In
> > exceptional situations, coherence may approach opaqueness to DQ:
>
> Let me put this in my own words and see if you agree. Patterns emerge from
> DQ. Sometimes when these patterns emerge in your presence you feel a sense
> of awe and wonder. You might even experience a feeling of unity with the
> whole world, a peak experience where words like patterns and DQ fall so
> far short of describing what you feel as to be meaningless. This
> experience of total bliss might happen as you listen to a concerto
> performed by master violinist.
>
> I hope this comes close. If not, I'm lost as to what you mean.
>
> Thanks for your patience.
>
> Best regards,
> Platt
>
> Mark 24-03-04: Your description sounds good. However, i have attempted to
> accommodate DQ as motivation and DQ as goal of evolution in one 'nowness'
i.e.
> Coherence. You can listen to a master violinist; he is already a highly
coherent
> patterning, otherwise he/she would not be a master? Your pattern merge
> certainly, and in doing so are dragged into coherence.
> That's the way i would put it. But the problem of simultaneous evolution
and
> that of only life responding to DQ must be settled otherwise my thinking
over
> the last four or five years has been a mistake.
>
> I welcome your critique Platt.
> 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
>
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 : Wed Mar 24 2004 - 19:14:50 GMT