From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Fri Jun 11 2004 - 20:01:46 BST
[Part. 1.]
Mark 11-6-04: Dear dmb, Now that you have returned, you may like to address
the following:
(The following was initially posted in the MF 25-5-04 before the Topic
changed in June 2004.)
Mark 25-5-04: Hello everyone,
The Topic question for this month is, "What is a level."
So far, dmb, Sam, Kirk, Rich and myself have expressed views upon this topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
My own view is the most simple and straightforward:
Mark's answer 12-5-04:
A Level is composed of patterns of Static Quality evolving in the event
stream towards DQ.
1. Event stream (DQ) --------> 3. Coherence <-------- 2. DQ Goal of evolution
1. Event stream is immediate Dynamic flux of experience. (SODV)
2. Goal of evolution is also immediate Dynamic flux of experience. (Lila)
3. Coherence is a tension between static patterns emerging from the Dynamic
flux.
All levels display preference towards coherence.
All levels display a preference towards limiting the previous levels
coherence.
New levels begin with Dynamic Quality.
A level may be said to be composed of a static repertoire of patterns within
which coherence forms. Coherence is also a measure of beauty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
Mark 25-5-04: dmb has suggested that, "levels are part of the oldest idea
known to man." dmb has also pointed out that levels are discrete.
Sam has provided an in depth and well thought out overview of what levels
are, citing textual support from Lila and asked questions regarding apparent
problems with them.
Kirk introduces Julian Jaynes.
Rich provided an insight into the balance between Topic (rhetoric) and system
(the rational) in Pirsig's own description of Levels in Lila. This reminded
me of Poincare's rhetorical approach to his work in physics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
dmb has this to say about my contribution 23-5-04: "It seems you've used my
post as a platform to express your ideas about "coherence" in the MOQ. We
could
have a conversation about the elected topic, but I have to insist that you
respond directly AND without weighing it all down with your personal theories
and repetitious jargon."
Mark 25-5-04: 1. As is plain from my initial response to this months Topic
(12-5-04) i already provide a description of levels in terms of coherence.
dmb
is factually incorrect to suggest i use his posts as a platform - my views
are
already stated.
2. Coherence is central to an MOQ description of what a level is. dmb is
therefore wrong a second time when he implies coherence has nothing to do
with the
elected Topic. Coherence has everything to do with the elected Topic: One of
the key features of levels in the MOQ is precisely that they can be seen to
be
increasing in coherence.
3. Therefore, it is most inappropriate for dmb to suggest that i am not
responding directly. Coherence provides a simple and elegant description not
only
of what levels are, but also how they operate. My description is superior to
any dmb has so far invested in.
4. It is disingenuous of dmb to refuse to recognise or provide constructive
consideration of a fellow Focus group member's ideas. It is low Quality to
dismiss as personal theorising and jargonistic that which has already been
expounded in a clear and structured manner. (See, The edge of chaos. Mark
Maxwell.)
Right from the beginning, dmb has used this months Topic to try and
unsuccessfully align the MOQ with Ken Wilber: dmb 11-5-04: "And of course
this kind of
evolutionary development is not limited to the biological level, but includes
all the known universe, from dirt to divinity as Wilber would put it,
including us."
And again, it can be seen in dmb's assertion that levels are part of the
oldest idea known to man: dmb 13-5-04: "What's my point? I suspect reality
itself
is ranked and ordered somehow and its not just us imposing our hierarchies.
The idea seems too old, too pervasive, too useful and too well backed by
evidence for us to do anything but believe it."
Mark 25-5-04: There is no textual support in the MOQ for dmb's assertion.
Mark 18-5-04: Quality is the oldest idea known to man. You (dmb) suspect
levels are part of the oldest idea known to man. Therefore, you (dmb) suspect
levels are part of Quality.
There is abundant textual support for a description of levels in terms of
coherence in Lila. (Please refer to The edge of Chaos by Mark Maxwell.)
Coherence, as an MOQ enquiry into particular examples of excellent patterned
states,
also describes very well many of the examples of Quality found in ZMM, not
least
the value of maintaining a motorcycle at it's 'sweet spot'!!
dmb dismisses all this, and other examples i gave him, including a correction
of his ZMM quote regarding 'value quietness' with the following: dmb 23-5-04:
"As for the rest of your "criticisms", I honestly don't know what you're
talking about."
[Part. 2. follows.]
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 Jun 11 2004 - 20:41:38 BST