To Jonathan, Platt, Erin, etc
JONATHAN:
I really don't understand how one "follows" dynamic quality. The dynamic
than can be followed is not the real dynamic! What one can do, and I
suppose this is what Wim means, is to BREAK patterns of static quality.
What I find objectionable is Wim's implication, specifically with regard
to social patterns, that one should break the rules purely for the sake
of breaking them. That to me is a misrepresentation of the MoQ. Patterns
become established because they offer predictability. You need to know
the likely outcome of certain behaviour - otherwise how can you choose
how to act? ...
While I oppose Wim's extreme stance, I do not hold the extreme opposite
position that patterns should NEVER be broken. I think that patterns
SHOULD be broken when there is good reason to do so - and even when
there is no good reason NOT to do so. When Gandhi marched to the sea to
make salt, in violation of a British monopoly, this was a piece of brave
and clever pattern breaking. Unfortunately, for every Gandhi-style
lawbreaker, there are millions of criminal lawbreakers. One thus needs
to find a correct balance.
ROG:
Well said. This ties in with Erin's comments and the idea of living on the
edge of chaos. I agree that the social and biological patterns that have
evolved are of value and that most experiments on the edge lead only to
failure. But some don't. I agree that we can't know for sure which changes
are improvements until new ideas are tried, however, I do suspect that there
are patterns to success (In other words, we can't be sure where DQ is, but we
can be pretty sure where it is very unlikely to be found. The solution isn't
entirely random imo. For example, I think we agree that stealing, raping and
killing is unlikely to be worth experimenting with, as composed to
experiments with... oh, copyright laws, for example. That lieing is
unlikely to lead to scientific progress. That offshoots of phlogiston theory
are less likely to be worthwhile than offshoots of quantum physics.
What do the patterns of higher quality have that those of destruction, decay
and disorder don't? That is to me the fundamental question arising out of the
MOQ. I have lots of thoughts, but none conclusive yet. What do you guys
think?
JONATHAN:
Here is my vote for the organizing forces of the four levels...
The organizing force for all levels is SURVIVAL. Patterns that do not
value their own survival, or are not part of a grander pattern that
values their survival . . . tend not to survive. The levels complicate
this simple truth. If you really want to understand patterns, you have
to understand WHY they survive. This is something to be considered when
discussing terrorism, capitalism, religion and even SOM.
ROG:
I agree that we must understand WHY they survive. Surviving patterns seem to
be self organizing, self supporting (of underlying or lower level patterns)
and dynamic. Stability through change. Sq through DQ. Survival on the edge
of chaos.
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:41 BST