RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
Tue, 8 Sep 1998 01:31:49 +0100
Before I go further, let me introduce myself to the Squad. My name is Roger
Parker. I am a 39 year old married male living in Dallas,Texas and currently
commuting to San Francisco to a job as a Researcher (personal lines
underwriting and pricing) for a large insurance company. I hope these
discussions help me to better understand MOQ as statically reflected in Lila,
and perhaps allow us to dynamically advance the ideas to the next plateau.
Glove:
I don't see a computer virus as a biological pattern of value. It resembles a
biological virus in that it uses an existing PoV to spread and replicate
itself......and aren't even 'biological' viruses technically inorganic? The
virus in my floppy replicates itself in the static & dynamic patterns of
Information Technology. The other kind replicates in biological hosts.
Both have the static ability to continue and copy themselves and the
dynamic ability to adapt to improve their replicative ability or to counteract
anti-viral initiatives of the host.
Sometimes these 4 levels restrict my ability to think. I can keep labeling and
segmenting to some kind of reductionist's hell. Are emotions biological?
Intellectual? Probably a combination of both with the other two levels thrown
in for good measure. Is a computer program/floppy/internet sysem an InorgPoV
or an IntelPoV? Again it is both, with clear connectedness with biological and
social patterns as well. The very act of labeling can be both clarifying and
limiting.
Pirsig was brilliantly successful at revealing the connections and
discontinuities between levels of value.Dynamic quantum events combine into
static InorgPoV's,which then recombine into biological, social and
intellectual patterns. We can then define new patterns that emerge from
combinations across levels(such as a city). If I was to suggest a 5th level I
would have cut it between quantum and the mechanistic Inorganic
patterns.......but I won't make such a suggestion because I think all the
levels are somewhat arbitrary. There is only value.
Diana:
You write---
>So what Pirsig is saying is that we have free will when we follow
>Dynamic Quality.
>I really hate to disagree with him but to me that's a contradiction in
>terms.
>The very notion of free will is inseparable from the notion of subjects
>and objects. To even speak of it is to show that you've swallowed the
>subject-object metaphysics whole. It is the subject that has free will
>after all. You cannot be Dynamic and have a fully fledged subject
>concept at the same time. "Man makes choices" is pure SOM. Who makes
>choices? The little ghostly "me"s that live inside our heads apparently.
>Lose the idea of subjects, on the other hand, and the question
>evaporates; there's nothing left to have a will.
I like and agree with the way you redefine this issue as a logical trap of S/O
metaphysics. It makes me wonder-- are future static patterns of value
determined by the past? How about future dynamic changes? My first thought on
both is that quantum indeterminism combined with the chaotic complexity of
interaction destroys any deterministic aspect of the universe. Patterns of
value emerge,but aren't 'determined '. If this is so,combining it with your
obsevations on free will eliminates my reservations on the MOQ's ability to
solve the deterministic platypi.
Thanks for the insights.
Rog
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:46 CEST