Magnus Berg (MagnusB@DataVis.se)
Wed, 1 Jul 1998 06:21:33 +0100
Hi Squad
Horse wrote:
> I don't think that they are mutually exclusive as such. I think the
> first model is wrong (separate static levels with DQ external)
> and the second model (seperate levels which are, to some degree
> dynamic)
> is still wrong, but close and in need of
> modification.
>
> My point here was that, in the models that I described, if each level
> is
> completely separate and discrete then in order for one
> level to influence or interact with another level there would have to
> be
> some separate means by which this can occur as their
> separateness precludes interaction. The inference of separateness and
>
> detachment IN THOSE TWO MODELS demands this
> and unnecessarily introduces problems similar to those of the
> Cartesian
> Mind/Matter model. The way I see it is that all patterns
> of value vary only in the effect that they produce in the 'phenomenal'
> world. Biological PoV's are the result of interactions at
> an inorganic level. BioPoV's interact to produce SocPoV's such as
> families, cultures, churches, governments, laws, etc. and
> the interaction of both BioPoV's and SocPov's result in IntPoV's. This
> may seem slightly at odds with the currently accepted
> interpretation, but think about it. If SocPoV's interact to produce
> IntPoV's then how and where do IntPoV's manifest
> themselves. They are not disembodied patterns floating freely
> somewhere,
> they exist as part of what we perceive as other
> creatures which possess intellectual capabilities - be they humans,
> dolphins, elephants etc. It is the commonality of these
> patterns of value that produce the phenomena - at whatever level you
> wish - which we perceive.
>
What you describe here is the inter level dependency, not really the
issue here but it's hard to discuss the DQ/SQ split without digging into
it a little.
Each level is completely discrete, but not separate as a quality event
of a level involves the level and all levels below it. To use Bo's
dimension analogy, a biological QE is two dimensional. If it is a smell
QE, it involves a certain mixture of gases that an electronic nose can
detect. It can even be taught to recognize some smells. The electronic
nose is only one dimensional however, it can only experience inorganic
QEs. It takes a biological nose to get a real smell experience.
If you want to read more on this, you could check my Classist essay
in the forum.
Horse wrote:
> But biological PoV's are founded on inorganic PoV's and exacly where
> one
> finishes and the other starts is indistinct. To draw
> arbitrary lines and declare that one side is inorganic and the other
> organic is a SOM classification fudge (the platypus). Better
> to think in terms of fractal boundaries - indistinct and continuous.
>
The mistake is the question. I think most look at SQ as a line where all
things can be placed in one compartment or another, or as you suggests,
in several. But SQ is not a line, it is an n-dimensional space where all
things extend themselves.
Horse wrote:
> BO:
> "Finally, my proposal for a DQ/SQ split (minimalistic) definition is
> CHANGE versus PERMANENCE."
>
> Aren't we getting back into the Either/Or, Subject/Object split here.
> Permanence implies some form of absolute or frozen
> pattern which can never change. If a value pattern is permanent then
> how
> does change ever occur. The Brujo example
> illustrates the lack of permanence at the social level and I think
> this
> will be the same within all the other levels too.
>
>
> One final thing that I would bring up is the idea of 'better'. How do
> we
> judge when change is better and by reference to what
> criteria is this judgement made? Just a thought!
>
I'm completely with Bo here.
DQ (Change) is the answer to the question:
How can anything become?
SQ (Permanence) is the answer to the question:
How can anything be?
I think these are the most basic questions that can ever be asked.
Most answers just beg another question, these do not!? I honestly
don't think so.
You and Diana also brought up the 'better' discussion. I think Glove
answered it quite well. The important thing is that 'change' is not
'the result of change'. I believe we've covered this before. 'The result
of change' is SQ, 'change' is DQ. 'The result of change' might be
better or worse than the original, but the MoQ has nothing to say
about this if the result belongs to the same level.
Magnus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST