Jason Gaedtke (jgaedtke@scitele.com)
Tue, 26 Aug 1997 03:59:07 +0100
Bodvar:
I agree with your interpretation of my comments. Perhaps our debate points to a deeper underlying characteristic of the MoQ. Subdividing all of "reality" into four distinct categories or levels of evolution necessarily involves making some broad generalizations. The difficulty that I am having with the current system lies in the ambiguity of each of the levels -- as they currently stand. Perhaps my suggestion that further levels are necessary was a rather hasty attempt at diminishing this ambiguity.
I follow your earlier comments regarding the frequent inter-level overlap in language (e.g. your examples of love, friendship, etc.) and the confusion and misunderstanding that this ambiguity can produce. My emphasis here, however, is on intra-level ambiguity.
Placing all inorganic patterns of value in one class involves an enormous amount of generalization. After all, we're talking about phenomena as small as the first static, distinguishable quantum events and as large as planets, solar systems, and even entire universes (excluding all Dynamic Quality and phenomena falling into any of the three upper levels, of course). If we are to avoid defining an infinite number of new static levels, then there must be some definite gradation within each of the currently existing levels. Pirsig's philosophical offering has been a profound step in the right direction -- ultimately placing Value at the root of our new worldview. To get the most benefit from this new system, especially when viewed as an ethical tool, the next step must be taken in developing guidelines that resolve conflicts involving static patterns of the same level.
Perhaps some real-world examples will help. Is a mountain or an ocean more "valuable" than an atom or a photon? (Is this relative to the situation?) What distinguishes a high-quality intellectual idea from a lower-quality one? All things being equal (i.e. same static level), is complexity a valid measure of the amount of Quality that a given pattern possesses?
Ultimately, how can we more carefully apply the MoQ to conflicts in our everyday life -- aside from the obvious case of inter-level conflicts? Perhaps I'm missing some important aspects of the existing framework. If so, I hope that someone on the list can point me in the right direction.
Thanks for your time,
Jason
-- post message - mailto:skwokÉspark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquadÉgeocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:25 CEST