Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Wed, 27 Aug 1997 03:30:32 +0100
Doug Renselle wrote:
D: "....Pirsig has already agreed that there is a level under his former
bottom level.
Plus one may not deny the fractal nature of everything in the
multiverse..."
B: The first part I find very intriguing. Do you refer to the 1995 Brüssels
paper (Subjects, Objects..Data) or another source? Please quote the full
passage.
===============
Jason Gaedtke wrote:
J: 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).
B: Yes it is an enormous generalization, but a metaphysics professing to
cover everything must start at this general level, and of course: The
Inorganic level IS the material universe.
J: 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.
B: No irony, but I can't see the need for that. For instance graduation
within the Organic level: An amoeba is as much alive as a human being
biologically seen, even if it is exceedingly simple. However, if you think
of man as
a social being or capable of symbolic exchange we have entered other moral
levels - particularly the Intellectual one.
J: 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?)
B: You have a point here. As I see it MOQ don't present ready-made specific
ethical guidelines like the Mosaic law or the Koran - thank Goodness; we
have had enough of commandments - but it solves a series of age old moral
dilemmas; for instance the problem of "evil" and "free will".
J: 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?)
B: Hmmm, a deep one this. Can you can stand another round of MOQ basics? A
mountain, an ocean, an atom and a photon are within the same quality
dimension - the Inorganic - and as such equal, but to the other levels
(the Organic one preferably) they are evaluated very differently. But
nothing
is dispensable or valueless in a MOQ sense.
J: 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?
B: Another puzzle, but the same goes here: An idea is an static
Intellectual pattern and as such no more high or low quality than any other
thought, but when - manifest - applied to a society (in the cultural
sense), it may be a catastrophy or a blessing. Remember the "insanity" part
of LILA? (The "complexity" of an idea is no valid measure - as I see it).
My hope is that MOQ will make it into society, because it is the highest
quality idea ever.
J: 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.
B: You might offer an example here, but we - the LS - apply it already. And
thank you for posing such triguing and stimulating questions, and also for
your kind words about my web piece (in a previous entry).
Bodvar
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@geocities.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