From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Apr 22 2003 - 07:16:43 BST
Dear Johnny,
I agree with you (21 Apr 2003 19:57:26 +0000) that it is not necessary 'to
imply that the lower levels are just like chains, locking things up and
impinging on freedom'. Pirsig did that (ch.12 of 'Lila': 'A primary
occupation of every level of evolution seems to be offering freedom to lower
levels of evolution.') to clarify the difference between the levels. Your
way to differentiate between them (each level founding the next) also seems
a valid way to me however.
You wrote further 21 April:
'Someone asked recently how you can discern evolution from degeneracy, good
change from bad. Someone else offered an answer that it is by looking to
see if a "good" static pattern is left in its wake. (I think it was Wim and
Sam?). I agree with that, but you can tell in advance too: you can look at
existing static patterns (what else is there to look at?) and predict what
would be a good change. We take a pattern we like and try to make it
stronger. Sometimes a change is made without predicting what will happen,
just applying one pattern to another pattern to see what happens, and we
don't see if it is better or worse until afterwards, but I think most of the
time we push in the direction that static patterns suggest to us is
"forward". We may not be right all the time, often we will decide that what
we thought was going to be good was actually bad, but most of the time we
can tell.'
It was Sam and me. Sam asked 3 Mar 2003 12:02:32 -0000 whether 'new' was
equivalent to 'quality' for me. I replied 16 Mar 2003 00:09:55 +0100 that
only 'Dynamic Quality' can be recognized by it 'newness'.
Sam then asked 26 Mar 2003 15:16:50 -0000:
'How do you distinguish between randomly new and new which is DQ?'
And I replied 19 Apr 2003 23:36:13 +0200:
'DQ leaves static quality (patterns) in its wake. Coincidence (random
change) doesn't.'
Sam 20 Apr 2003 18:00:47 +0100 thought it strange for me so write such a
thing -which he agrees with- (because he thinks I value DQ higher than sq):
'This makes the discernment of DQ dependent on SQ. I don't disagree with
that, but I am surprised that it is an argument you would make. Have I
understood you correctly?'
I don't expect you (Johnny), being an avowed supporter of the value of sq
against the value of DQ, to disagree that discernment of DQ depends on new
static patterns of value emerging?!
For it is the 'newness' of these emerging static patterns of value that
identifies Dynamic Quality, however. It is the value of change that can NOT
be predicted on the basis of static patterns of value that constitutes
Dynamic Change. Strengthening existing static patterns of value constitutes
static quality.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 22 2003 - 07:49:41 BST