ROGER PROVIDES FEEDBACK TO MARY
Mary, I thought your post was right on target. However, you asked for
critique, so please allow some nit picking........
MARY WRITES:
Each of these levels of values is defined by a separate set of morals whose
purpose is to protect and enhance the existence of the level.
ROGER:
Horse and I had a discussion on something along this line last month. I think
it was in answer to his summary on morality. I believe that value creates and
defines the level, and the patterns within that level, but I wouldn't agree
with emphasizing that the levels have "purpose", or that they try to enhance
or protect anything. The forces of each level do create, build, protect and
destroy patterns........but.....
I am not into emphasizing "autopoiesis", or self organization, to the levels.
I think the term "emergence" of the level works better. If this was taken as
a direct quote from the big Kahuna himself, then I would suggest that it
wasn't a representative quote of the key to the levels.
Horse and others, feel free to correct me?
MARY:
The set of moral judgments used to enhance and
protect one level are not the same set needed to enhance and protect
another.
ROGER
Again, I believe the forces may contradict, but I would rephrase "The moral
forces that enhance, create and destroy PATTERNS on one level are not the
same...."
MARY:
Thus the four static levels are in conflict. To resolve these
conflicts between the morals of each level a higher set of moral codes exist
(pg. 187).
ROGER:
I actually interpret the emergence of each level as INITIALLY a way to
resolve conflicts between patterns at that prior level. Eventually, the
solution becomes a pattern that re-enforces itself. Now, the values of the
the emergent new level often can be in direct conflict with the prior level.
However, IMHO, I believe that Pirsig WAY overstates the conflict and WAY
understates the synergy between patterns of different levels. In general, a
successful society is a very "member friendly" system. It is only certain key
harmful forces that society tries to supress. Many other forces it harnesses
for the mutual benefit of the higher and lower level. On the other hand,
since the levels are defined by their forces , I can see why he has to
emphasize the difference to the prior level.
As for your DQ definitions, be sure to read Pirsig's Forum posting SUBJECTS,
OBJECTS, DATA and VALUES. I think he is more concise and possibly more
advanced in his ideas here. Also, he contradicts equating DQ with chaos
somewhere????? I forget where? And he mentions several "scientific"
terms.....I think they were "probability" (at the 1st level only), and "The
conceptually unknown."
By the way, someone, Jonathan I think, used the term "potential" to describe
DQ in October. The more I think of this , the more I like it. No one word is
perfect of course, but this word captures almost everything else you mentioned
in your post.....It is all encompassing, it is unpredictable and unknown, it
involves risk and luck, it implies change and creation, it has probability and
the unknown.......
I hope this is value. Please disregard where I am wrong!
Roger
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