Hi Glove, Bodvar, Ken, and Squad,
> > Glove:
> > do see where you are coming from. however, Forces of Value and Patterns
> > of Value are not the same, and i feel you may be mixing the two in your
> > reply. patterns of value are static quality while forces of value are
> > Dynamic in nature and creates and discreates the patterns of value that
> > make up our everyday reality.
> Bodvar:
>Does the
> Dynamic/Static division continue into the static realm? It's a subtle
> thing, earlier I used the wave/water metaphor, but in an "analytical"
> sense I don't think so. Once the crystallizations have formed they are
> incurable static and the DQ can only overcome it by creating a new
> level...which in turn becomes a static prison, and so on.
Pirsig says there are 4 static levels with 5 moral codes mediating
them. He never explicitly states what 'category' the moral codes
fall into - whether static or dynamic, only that they act to resolve
conflicts between the levels and between static and dynamic quality.
My sense is that they are equivalent to the forces of value you refer
to, Glove. The patterns of value would be the static levels
themselves, while the forces of value would equate to the moral
codes. Is this in line with your thinking Glove?
I like your wave/water metaphor, Bodvar. Dynamic quality is within
and throughout all, but once latched it becomes a fixed static value
that DQ can no longer affect, leaving the dynamic moral codes as the
only recourse for additional change. So in that sense, I view the
moral codes as dynamic quality freeing the universe from the latest
static level.
> Glove:
> > the question i am attempting to answer is HOW the intellect imposes
> > itself upon the other levels via underlying value forces. but much
> > static latching is needed, i fear.
Not sure I understand the question. How the intellect imposes itself
is via subject/object logic. But I don't think this is what you are
asking?
>>Ken:
> > In my opinion Quality is inherent in the physical universe and
> > Humanity is just an artifact of the overarching Quality. Quality came
> > into being at the beginning and is not a force. Quality is a result of
> > the way that the Universe was organized physically and represents the
> > POSSIBILITIES for further organizational complexity that were initially
> > available to it. Whatever can happen will happen.
Daddy, as I well know, you are firmly in the Darwinian camp. As I
see it, your basic argument centers around whether or not the
universe is moving toward the 'good' or simply toward increasing
possibility/complexity. I would have to ask, "what's the
difference?" From any direction I can think of it from, increased
complexity always offers increased choices, whether they be
inorganic, biological, cultural, or intellectual. And increased
choices are always 'good'. What do you think?
Best wishes,
Mary
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 - 16:02:48 BST