-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Balestra <pp-balestra@gelrenet.per.nl>
To: 'moq_discuss@moq.org' <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 5:54 AM
Subject: MD Are the levels discrete or continuous?
>
>Dear Squad,
>(yes I'm still here, I've got untill Xmas and have difficulty to let go
with such an intruiging discussion)
Hi Walter
i started this message some time ago and thought i would send it along for
the holidays.
Walter:
>
>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!!!
Glove:
remember Pirsigs first division of reality is Dynamic Quality/static
quality, and furthermore, even though we can not perceive Dynamic Quality,
it is always of higher moral value than static quality. the moral conflicts
that arise between the four static levels must be looked at in that fashion
and then contradictions disappear.
Walter:
>
>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.
Glove:
i disagree, respectfully. in fact if we do acknowledge that Quality is the
foundation of reality as we perceive it, we must also acknowledge that there
is a method of perceiving that Quality that all forms share. perhaps they
have to be biological to start with...although i am not even certain of that
really. but lets say that is one of our assumptions just for fun. we will
only consider that which is alive and perceives the environment.
perception -- what is it? Pirsig called it a Quality Event and i find that a
very apt explanation. but if we look at a Quality Event, we must ask
ourselves what it is that perceives that event? yes, the sense organs
function as carriers, including the brain, and all together the inputs
produce a greater output, consciousness and self-awareness. but what is "it"
that is self-aware?
i am unsure how we can ever know whether your little snail is using
intellect level functions or not. right or wrong, the main thrust of my
writings has been to recognize conception of the Quality Event as the
intellect level at work. and since it could be said that snails do conceive
of Quality Events that they are using the intellect level.
Walter:
>
>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.
Glove:
i think there is value in looking at things from all sides. i took the
liberty of adding a few dash marks to the right of "social" in your snail
diagram to show that the levels do maintain a certain discreteness and that
intellect patterns of value grow out of social patterns. [cognative] is
interesting. cognition is a preresquisite to awareness, dont you agree?
i think [cognative] in your snail is actually intellect at work in non-Time.
i also added some < and > to indicate the areas of moral conflicts arising
as a result of the opposing forces of value at work in the static quality
patterns of value. again, i think this is more in keeping with how Pirsig
talks about the Metaphysics of Quality in chapter 12 of Lila. see what you
think.
>
>>
>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.
>
Glove:
yes the levels do indeed seem discrete from within. and that is the only way
we have of perceiving them.
best wishes
glove
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 - 16:02:46 BST