Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Tue, 16 Jun 1998 04:54:35 +0100
Hi there Squadlings
THEO wrote:
"Horse. I am hoping to see some more of your A and not A interpretation
of the
dynamic/static split. I think this of great value to the debate as I
subscribe to
your view that the dynamic to static split is a continuum rather than a
rigid
dualism. The record you buy sounds really great, then great, then good,
then
O.K.There is no sudden great to O.K event, rather it gradually becomes a
static
pattern. What is more, static patterns can become dynamic again just as
dynamic patterns can become static. The distinction is simply a
classification
to clarify different forms of Quality for our own understanding, not a
either/or
split.(more later)."
Fair enough. We seem to be on a similar wavelength and this seems like a
reasonable time to continue what I started in the "Explain the
Subject-Object
Metaphysics" debate. In view of the current argument regarding sentience
and
my last posting (and those of others) on the DQ/SQ split I think that
some
clarification of my current position is necessary.
Sentience seems to be viewed in a number of ways in this discussion.
Within
the etymological aspect of the discussion the use of this word seems to
be
restricted to the human experience - consciousness. This usage is
regarded by
some as a form within S-O interpretation, in the sense that it is
referring to the
concept of Mind.
Others are interpreting sentience by MoQ means, with the result that all
patterns/values seem to be seen as sentient and no differentiation is
stated
between the sentience of a rock and that of a human.
Bo has brought up the SOTAQI aspect of his interpretation (which to me
seems
much clearer that his previous SAIOM/SOMAQI idea - I'm still thinking
about
this one but it does seem, initially at least, a much clearer path) but
this still
doesn't seem to provide a clear interpretation of the essence of
sentience.
========================================================
A quick aside.
DIANA wrote:
"But doesn't P imply that all Quality is sentient?
There's static sentience and dynamic sentience and the sentience of an
atom
is very different from the sentience of a Texan, but they are all types
of
experience and consequently value."
Where does P. imply this? I'm not doubting you Diana, I just missed it
in
reading Lila. I'd like to take a look at how he implies it for my own
satisfaction
and to see how/if it relates to what I am writing in this post.
========================================================
When I said in the "Explain the Subject-Object Metaphysics" discussions:
"...which is the form A AND NOT A where the divisions are not exclusive
but
overlapping to a degree which fits reality/experience. A AND NOT A is
the MoQ
also summed up in a minimalistic form.
Both of these are basic and established logical forms but the value
contained
within their use is that by moving to the inclusive form (A AND NOT A )
from the
exclusive form (A OR NOT A) we move from a discrete to a continuous
methodology. This establishes a broad base from which to work - which
I
believe gives a more concrete foundation to the framework of MoQ."
I didn't go into any depth in respect of A AND NOT A thinking and
consequently
much of what I meant may have been misinterpreted.
A AND NOT A thinking presumes that there is no strict division of forms
or the
expression of those forms. A AND NOT A represents a unification of
subject
and object, mind and matter, me and not me etc.systems. The divided
nature
of reality, introduced by SOM, is destroyed and there is a progression
from the
individual or discrete-thing-based view of the world to a
continuous/progressive
collective-attribute-based view. This is evident in the MoQ when we
consider
that a person/human is a collection of inorganic, organic, social and
intellectual
values.
The discrete view of the person is that we can draw a line at various
points and
say "this pattern of values creates this and that pattern of values
creates that"
in much the same way as has been described in the DQ/SQ split debate.
The continuous view is that the various aspects of a person tend to
become
fuzzy at the borders of the SQ levels and even within the body of the
level.
An example of this was raised recently, asking the question of whether
the
family belongs in the biological or the social level (I suppose to be
technically
correct I should say "is the family created by biological or social
patterns?" but
what the hell!! you know what I mean - I hope). The answer would appear
to be
that certain aspects belong to the biological and others belong to the
social, as
the family provides for activities and needs at both levels. I've seen
it stated
(Donny I think) that to refer to societies of animals other than humans
is only a
metaphorical reference. Well here's a more concrete example. The
discrete
view says that social patterns are OR are not part of the process of
creating an
animal - from the above I would draw the inference that it is NOT. The
continuous view says that there is a degree to which social patterns are
inherent in the creation of an animal. It is not a case of whether OR
NOT these
aspects inhere but the DEGREE to which they inhere. Some groups of
animals
[some species] exist in family units, that's undeniable, and their
family units
are different to those of human families. But 'family' is a form of
micro-social
unit wherein members have different roles to play, certain rules inhere
as to
behaviour etc. It would seem to me to be grossly and unacceptably
anthropocentric to say that because these family groups are not human
then
they can't be 'real' families or have inherent social attributes - they
are just not
_human_ social attributes.
So, referring to a particular species/instance of an animal we can say
the social AND biological patterns detemine the degree to which this
animal/species is biological AND social.It is reasonably easy to see the
similarity as we reduce in scale/type to the level of a cell (amoeba if
you want - a single celled animal). An individual cell is constructed
from inorganic material, but at some point becomes organic. Exactly
where is that point? To say "at the point where it becomes life" is not
only tautological but is just muddying the waters as the life/non-life
question has been raging for years in the morality of abortion debate
(another instance of exclusivist thinking). It's not whether something
is alive OR not alive but the degree to which something is alive and
consequently all the baggage that goes with it - rights and such. If
someone would like to tell me that a virus or bacteria is as alive as a
human then I can legitimately tell you that curing disease is murder.
In the DQ/SQ debate there is disagreement as to how DQ manifests itself
within the Quality model. How does DQ interact with SQ? What is the
interface?
In my last post I said that DQ is change or evolution and that we are
only ever aware of the 'static' patterns it leaves behind in its wake.
>From this we can see that what we call static patterns of value are
static AND dynamic to a varying degree. The degree depends on what is
changing, the level which we are referring to and the way in which this
occurs. Quantum wave/particle activity is dynamic and static. The
patterns vary in a definitely non-uniform way but remain stable within
probabalistic limits.. Radioactive material decays at different rates
depending on the isotope and the material. Dependent on the material its
stability can vary at micro and macro levels. Galaxies change at varying
rates but are stable structures with dynamic attributes. All of these
are within the Inorganic level and yet display different Dynamic
attributes. This does not mean that there is some different mechanism at
work, just the way in which it manifests itself varies BY DEGREES.
Similar occurences can be seen within the other levels.
By incorporating the continuous/progressive view within the Quality
model we solve the problem of interaction between levels at a stroke. No
more mystery about the DQ/SQ split. DQ and SQ still remain, we aren't
dematerialising them, they just become a continuous part of the whole.
DQ and SQ exist continuously side by side, just different aspects of the
same thing.Similarly with the levels of SQ, the continuous/progressive
view shows that there is continuity between the levels. One way of
thinking about this is in terms of fractals. Examining a fractal it is
quite easy to see the boundaries. When one of these boundaries is
expanded however the pattern continues. There is no clear boundary. This
is, I believe, the case for the static levels although to a slightly
less dramatic degree.
So how does sentience appear to manifest itself in the world and how can
iinorganic patterns be seen as 'sentient'. As Theo pointed out:
"If we start telling intelligent folk that free will and sentience are
the same thing we can only expect, and will only deserve, blank looks.
"
and similarly if one of us starts telling others (non-Pirsigians) that
the MoQ supports the idea of sentient rocks (pet rocks aside :-) ) then
that trip to the funny farm will be quick in coming.
But from the above explanation of continuity it is reasonable and
logical to state that sentience is present to a varying degree in all
things. The type of sentience and the degree to which any pattern
possesses that sentience is dependent upon the particular example that
one wishes to illustrate. So an atom possesses a type of sentience
(inorganic) to a degree (dependent on the type of atom) which is less
than that of a Texan, who possesses inorganic, biological, social and
intellectual sentience to a degree, dependent on a number of factors -
age, education, intellectual ability etc. Sentience is more
appropriately related to value and the higher up the evolutionary scale
something is the greater the sentience quotient in terms of value.
There's a lot more to this but for the moment I think I shall retire to
think about this some more.
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST