Jason Gaedtke (jgaedtke@scitele.com)
Fri, 22 Aug 1997 19:47:20 +0100
-----Original Message-----
From: Bodvar Skutvik ÄSMTP:skutvikÉonline.noÅ
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 1997 4:18 AM
To: Multiple recipients of
Subject: LS Re: Levels of Quality
the lila squad
--In response to what Jason wrote (Aug.20):
One must keep the basics clear: Permanence as such is Static Value; What isn't is Dynamic Value. The quantum level below the Static Inorganic level displays no patterns, is principally uncertain and as such dynamic.
A level above the Static Intellectual level? This is a very interesting idea and in my view MOQ allows for a never ending escalation of static patterns, but "ascending value" is the Dynamic force at work and doesn't qualify as a static level.
As to the vague borderline between the different static levels I would say that this is no objection. According to the quality idea the static patterns are - like waves - patterns in an underlying dynamic medium: different from other patterns but of the same "stuff". No one can tell where matter ends and life begins, or where an organism ends and a society starts (a body can be seen as a society of cells), nor the difference between communal cooperation and cultural activities. Still, one recognizes it when one encounters the experience.
The "friendship" term (why not "love"?) is a good example of the interplay: As sexual/erotic/+ attraction it is an Organic value, as love/loyalty/sympathy ++ it is a Social value, but as Platonic love/empathy/+++ it is an Intellectual value. I admit that even this is ambiguous and may be debated, but the MOQ offers a general picture that makes so much more sense than the Subject/Object metaphysics.
Bodvar (Bo) Skutvik
I'd like to take this opportunity to respond to Bodvar's comments and also to clarify some of my own. First, I'd like thank Bodvar for the work that he has done in preparing "The Quality Event." Very engaging and well-written; truly a valuable application and extension of Pirsig's work. I hope we can all look forward to enjoying more of your work in the future!
In regard to the matter of a Quantum level (no pun), you wrote:
The quantum level below the Static Inorganic level displays no patterns, is principally uncertain and as such dynamic.
I agree that uncertainty and probability play an invaluable role in our present (theoretical) understanding of this phenomena. However, I think that many modern physicists would take issue with your comment that quantum-level phenomena "display no patterns." The patterns that do exist are both static and dynamic -- just as is the content in each of the levels in the MoQ. (Take the Schrodinger wave equation as one example. It can be used to describe the definite (i.e., Static) probability of any number of potential (Dynamic) outcomes.)
Dynamic Quality, a Pirsig has presented it, seems to refer to the intangible substrate out of which all reality emerges. It is the constant life-force of the universe. (Incidentally, Danah Zohar's book, "The Quantum Society" presents a coherent new scientific hypothesis, involving the necessary influence of such a phenomena throughout all of reality.) In order for Dynamic Quality to have an effect on the Static levels, it must interact and influence them in some way. Therefore, Static Quality cannot accurately be described as exclusively "permanent." If this where true, all levels would be fixed, with no potential for further evolution. (Static and Dynamic Quality are not isolated entities. They are complimentary aspects of a continuous flux of being/becoming.) I see quantum physics as an excellent illustration of this interaction.
Furthermore, try to imagine a world without a static Quantum level -- a level involving patterns of creation and destruction, matter and energy, a constant complimentary "dance," if you will. Without this fundamental prerequisite, there would be no "raw material" facilitating the emergence of Inorganic Quality, and hence no Biological, Social or Intellectual. Because we cannot directly experience quantum-level "Quality Events" through our senses, we naturally overlook or disregard them in our conventional notion of reality.
If the MoQ is to survive as a cogent, holistic system of thought, it must subsume ALL phenomena.
As for the Ascendant static level, I entirely agree with your interpretation. The term "Ascendant" does have strong Dynamic implications and for this reason should probably not be used to describe a Static level. However, the prospect still remains for additional levels, and it will likely be necessary to refer to such levels in our discussions. Does anyone have any suggestions for an alternative name?
Thank you for your feedback. I'm greatly enjoying this exchange.
Regards, Jason
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:25 CEST