Dear Squad,
(yes I'm still here, I've got untill Xmas and have difficulty to let go with such an intruiging discussion)
It seems to me that the main question about the levels is:
ARE THE LEVELS DISCRETE OR CONTINUOUS?
Mary quoted Pirsig about the levels:
> 3) "[The levels] are not continuous. They are discrete."
I don't know excactly in what context this was written (I don't carry the book with me
everywhere I go ... eeh ... anymore ;-)) but I don't agree. It just doesn't match with the bottom-up
perspective of the evolution of value/morality.
I earlier wrote:
>I would like to add that from the universal morality (the bottom-up view) these levels are the
>big steps among other small steps in the continuum of the 'evolution' of patterns into more complex
>patterns that are more able in letting DQ be realized to the maximal and BEST extent.
>Take for instance the difference between a fly and an elefant as a difference in morality within the
>Biology-level (sublevels insects, mammals).
>From the perspective of Universal Quality (I use the word 'Universal' to make things clear, it is of
course the same as Quality) we all can see that there are numereous evolutionary steps within (for
example) the biological level. Keith wrote about a cognitive level:
>the origin of mind, i.e. the basic cybernetic, cognitive organization, going from simple reflexes to
>complex nervous systems, learning, and thought
which to me makes it pretty clear that there something 'in between' the Biological level and the Social
level which we could denounce as a different level. Maybe you would say no, because you say it is part
of the biological level. I ask myself what difference does it make, if we all see that it's an evolution
towards more complex patterns ... an evolution of value!
I think there are two mayor problems in the discussion:
1) Top-down reasoning:
Taking the levels as distinct we are talking about domination of lower levels and levels being opposed
to each other. I know Pirsig does that too but I don't agree with him in this, because it makes it very
easy to think in concepts as Good - Bad and Moral - Immoral and that is exactly the thing (I think) the
MoQ is contradicting in stating: Everything that exists has Value so is GOOD and is MORAL!!!
2) 2D thinking:
We take the levels as distinct and place them on a straight line.
Inorganic - Biological - Social - Intellectual
A) Looking at the levels from the bottom-up perspective there are many different lines of evolution of
static patterns of value since the emerging of the very first static pattern. For example if we look at the
evolution of value of the snail as a static pattern. We can say, in the snail evolution there are levels like
the Inorganical and Biological. The social level of this evolutionary line is probably limited with some sexual activities. I think we all agree that we can't speak of an Intellectual level.
B) Viewed from within the human - line, why can't it be?
Inorganic --- Biological --- [Cognative] ---------- Intellectual
--
-- Social
So are the levels discrete?
As I hope I showed with the above, they are not! And I think it would help the discussion if we would
grasp the bottom-up approach.
By the way: Keith: I loved your post!
Dtchgrtngs
Walter
One last remark to make it more complex :->
Looking at the snail again, the levels seem discrete from *within* the evolutionary line of the snail.
This also seems true when looking at ethics (and here I mean the Morality of human (sentient) behaviour)
I have to think about this last remark more.
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:43 BST