ROGER REPLIES TO MARY REGARDING PRIOR REPLIES
I WROTE:
>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.
MARY RESPONDED:
<<Pirsig writes on pg. 160 of "Lila" that, "All life is a migration of static
patterns of quality toward Dynamic Quality." On pg. 439, Pirsig adds that
,"'Dharma' is Quality itself, the principle of 'rightness' which gives
structure and purpose to the evolution of all life and to the evolving
understanding of the universe which life has created."
ROGER NOW ADDS:
Platt and I had this discussion in October. Is DQ and its emphasis on freedom
and non determination what we would customarily call "purpose"? There is a
direction away from staticness and toward complexity and freedom, but to
define this purpose is to limit it. The thread was called Defining the
Indefinite Infinite....and I think the title captures the
limiting factor of trying to assign much more in the way of purpose.
But this is DQ, my comment above was actually that assigning purpose to THE
LEVELS is prone to misrepresent the MOQ. There are clearly emergent
directions of creation and destruction and value........ but again, I am
reluctant to call these "purposes." In Complexity theory, systems can evolve
toward higher complexity with new "attractors" emerging. It is still a huge
leap though to assign these to "purpose."
The purpose that Pirsig refers to above is the purpose that the forces of
value impart to life patterns. The patterns have purpose.....not the levels.
MARY WROTE:
<<That's where I'm
coming from; the idea that the morals which define a given level are based
on 'rightness' for that level, and exist in order to statically latch (i.e.,
preserve) the values of that level.>>
ROGER ADDS:
The value forces for that level are the "rightness" of the level. And the
levels don't try to preserve themselves..... the patterns within the level
that are created may though. The social level doesn't try to preserve
itself.... it is not a SYSTEM, it is a description of a set of common values
and emergent patterns..... Societies try to preserve themselves.
ROGER WROTE:
>I actually interpret the emergence of each level as INITIALLY a way to
>resolve conflicts between patterns at that prior level.
MARY RESPONDED:
<<While I see the emergence of each level as initially a moral enhancement to
the current level.>>
ROGER NOW ADDS:
Interesting. Could you tell me more?
ROGER WROTE:
>I believe that Pirsig WAY overstates the conflict and WAY
>understates the synergy between patterns of different levels.
MARY RESPONDED:
<<Something will not become a new level without subscribing to a new set of
morals that are distinctly different from the set of morals defining the
previous level. If the same set of morals define both things, then both
things are still within the same level. When looking back at the distinct
differences between each existing level, I see that although each level
originally arose as an enhancement to it's parent level, each level now is
in direct opposition to its parent. The social level attempts to restrain
the biological and the intellectual attempts to completely destroy the
social. I believe there is danger in devaluing these conflicts.>>>>
ROGER ADDS:
I agree completely with the issue that the definition requires us to focus on
the differences, and believe this is why Pirsig stresses the oppositional
nature. Nor did I intend to completely 'devalue" conflict. I am trying to
"revalue" synergy and cooperation of PATTERNS both within and between levels.
When you look at the biological LEVEL, it is defined as a different set of
values than the preceding Inorganic one. However, Patterns ,or organisms,
don't reject all laws of physics....sure they fly and stand upright, but they
also USE the law of gravity to land and to help digest and to keep from
floating away and to keep less agile predators away.
Likewise, biological organisms get more benefit from society than they get
harm. Oh sure, they have to repress the urge to fight and rape and steal, but
any quality society taps right into their biological needs for self interest,
and taking care of offspring and so on.
As for your comment on the intellectual patterns undermining the social
level...... this is used to illustrate a mistake of the fledgling new emergent
patterns. My reply is that the patterns of intellect had better follow both
our advice.....don't devalue the danger of the opposition, and do value the
synergy and cooperation needed with social patterns.
In brief, I believe my only fundamental concern is with how you seem to be
"anthropomorphicising" the levels.
Signing off from Dallas
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