ROGER CONTINUES THE DISCUSSION ON THE FORCES OF VALUE AND SHOWS THIS IS PURE
MOQ
To: Jonathan, Bodvar, Mary and Glove ( and hoping Horse who also has commented
on "Forces" in last months morality wrap up will join in soon)
What Does Pirsig say on Forces Of Value?
Just before this month's selected lead-in on Intellect, (P178 of Ch 12) Pirsig
writes:
<<".....'Man'....... and even such pronouns as 'I' ,'he' and
'they',............can be used as long as it is remembered that they are terms
for COLLECTIONS OF PATTERNS and not some independent primary reality of their
own">>>>(emphasis added)
Rather than "patterns", he says 'Collections of patterns". Then he goes on to
say something that is even more unique.......
<<"Matter is just a name for certain inorganic value patterns......Biological
patterns, social patterns and intellectual patterns are supported by this
pattern of matter but are independent of it. THEY HAVE RULES AND LAWS OF
THEIR OWN THAT ARE NOT DERIVABLE FROM THE RULES OR LAWS OF SUBSTANCE">>
Rules and laws of their own? What are these? Pirsig continues......
<<" Biological and social and intellectual patterns are not the possession of
substance. The laws that create and destroy these patterns are not the laws
of electrons and protons.......THE FORCES THAT CREATE AND DESTROY THESE
PATTERNS ARE THE FORCES OF VALUE">>
There it is......forces of value. I say the key to understanding the levels
isn't to concentrate on the patterns themselves, it is to focus on these
forces of value that define and create the patterns. Why?
1) Because the patterns themseves grouped by any level have very little else
in common. What besides the common forces of biological value do DNA, teeth,
mucus, dolphins, gopher holes, and rainforests have in common?
2) Because a given pattern isn't "an independent primary reality". It is a
term for collections of patterns. And often multiple levels are involved.
Consider briefly Pirsig's above mentioned "man":
Clearly a man is formed from inorganic patterns such as carbon and water. And
clearly a man is formed from biological patterns such as hair and skin and
lungs. And clearly this man is a father and a catholic, and a college-
educated Democrat. And your whole concept of this man is an abstract
intellectual pattern. So which level is he?
Mary, I think, mentioned that we were arguing over the 4 levels a year ago. I
say we will be arguing still for another year unless we quit trying to define
the levels around emergent patterns, and start focusing on the fundamental
forces of value that create and destroy the patterns. These, IMHO, can be
defined and sorted. Let me take a rough cut at it..........
Inorganic-
What forces create and destroy electrons and protons? Physicists would point
to the forces of strong, weak, electromagnetism and gravity. But in defining
them, they explain them by "fields" where VALUES (virtual particles) exchange
VALUE (mass/energy) of a certain VALUE (spin/charge/color/etc) for a certain
VALUE (time).
(Jonathan, feel free to clarify as needed, but I think the above is pretty
close.)
Atoms, chemicals, planets, orbits and globular clusters are not primary
realities, they are specific collections of the above forces of value.
Biological-
Some of the above mentioned collections known as 'chemicals' began to interact
together and form complex protiens and nucleic acids that could replicate
themselves. Over the eons these chemicals formed protective barriers around
themselves, began absorbing other chemicals from their surroundings, formed
DNA to pass on codes for reconstructing themselves, and began converting
chemicals into energy.
(Read up on complexity for more details.....and Jonathan be kind......was I
close?)
The forces of value that define biological patterns include:
Replication, consumption, energy conversion, and inorganic value FORCE
repression. (On p176, Pirsig states that "a primary occupation of every level
of evolution seems to be offering freedom to lower levels.")
These biological forces mixed with the prior level's forces create and destroy
hearts and skin and grass and embryos and synaptic nerves and lions and nests
and savanahs.
Social-
The emergent forces of Teamwork, Communication, Specialization, Status and
Duty, along with the repression of certain disruptive biological forces,
combine with the two preceding levels to create cities and priests and
languages and morality.
Intellect-
Intellectual patterns are conceptual abstractions of reality used by complex
organisms and later by social groups. The forces of value that create and
destroy these patterns include truth, logical consistency, practicality,
communicatability, and recordability
COMMENTARY
TO JONATHAN AND GLOVE AND MARY:
JONATHAN WRITES:<<<" this "obsession" with
dropping everything into little boxes isn't always useful, and leads to
"platypuses". I got drawn into the trap by classifying the "Law of Gravity" as
inorganic. It's not wrong, but others answers are possible.">>>>>>
I agree completely. Note Glove and Mary's discussion on where Marriage
falls.......I can define it from 3 of the 4 levels. They are both right.
JONATHAN:<<<>>>>
I hope the above explanation clarifies. By the way, I am aware that though he
clarifies the "Forces" in the key 12th and 13th chapters, that Pirsig later
drops this distinction. I also agree that it is through complexity that these
new patterns emerge. They are not new forces.....they are the same DQ sq
quality event that reveal themselves differently based on the level.....based
on what it takes to create and destroy patterns at a given level..
TO BO:
BODVAR:<<"I did initially wince at the notion of 'value forces' in contrast to
'static examples' (or 'underlaying values vs emergent phenomena) and started
on a long-winded explanation from the first static latch. I stressed that
there is no matter in contrast to forces or laws. If there was it would mean
that the DQ-SQ split continued into the static patterns and that would sound
very much like subject-objectivism in a quality guise. It was easy to defend
this view regarding the Inorganic and it also went well into the Biological
realm too; a living organism is inorganic values overlaid by biological ones.
Survival, consumption and replication is.....well I got away with the "other
half of the coin" simile. But at the Social level it got difficult not to
differentiate between what you call 'value forces' and 'static examples' and
at the Intellect I got myself into a mess.">>>>>
Not what I call value forces......What Pirsig calls value forces. He touches
upon them a final time in Ch13....p183 when he mentions "laws of nature",
'laws of the jungle", "laws" and "intellectual morality". Though he later
simplifies and drops this distinction, why do you suppose he uses forces so
clearly when first defining and clarifying the levels?
BO:"<<The way you formulated these question, existence is seen from Q-
Intellect and Its first and foremost value is to see divisions: underlying vs
emergent, forces vs substance, 'elan vital' vs dead matter, socializing
instinct vs societies...etc: a cornucopia of such dichotomies all carrying the
SO caste mark.">>>>>
The intellectual maps of reality involve useful static patterns. The
distinctions and divisions differ based on the mental map's purpose and based
on the practical value of the map.......see my upcoming treatise on
Pragmatism.
TO GLOVE AND ALL:
GLOVE:"<< please remember i am not talking about any
observable force as we know it in the universe when i talk about Force of
Value. since it is Dynamic in nature we are unaware of its presence directly.
i am in no way attempting to define Dynamic Quality but i am recognizing what
it does as creative and discreative force in the universe.">>>>
Although I seem to be contradicting this, I agree .What I was pointing out
wasn't DQ, it was "recognizing what it does as creative and discreative
force." I recommend we all reread chapter 12 and 13 again. Pirsig mentions
this key in more places than I quoted.
TO MARY, BO, JONATHAN AND GLOVE:
MARY:<<<" The question I have is in what way does the social level value such
abstractions? Does the social level need abstraction? Couldn't it get along
perfectly well without it? Does the social level have the capability of using
abstractions to increase its own value? ........(snip)......So, Bodvar, the
4th level is defined by the value of splitting the world into the observed and
the observer. Subjects and objects. I think you may be right. This is what
makes the intellectual level different from the social; for what need does the
social level have for doing such a thing? Abstraction is not the key
difference (Jonathan tell me why I'm wrong here), but the subject/object split
is the key difference defining the intellectual level. Societies can and have
developed without it (i.e.. the East - though not a perfect example).">>>>>>>>
Intellectual patterns or thoughts developed in higher order organisms for
their practical value to the organism. Mind,Society and Intellect all
developed together in an intertwined dance of creation known as 'Lila'.
MARY<<"Taken to its conclusion then, the intellectual level is not defined by
higher-order brain function. We existed for 1000's of years with exactly he
same brain we have today - but without the subject/object split - that is,
without the intellectual level.">>
Higher order biological and social patterns were necessary platforms for the
intellect's emergence. But they don't define the emergent level. But neither
does this isolated S/O split. 3 of us have now asked someone to define S/O
logic vs other logic ........ Well?
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