Re: MD What is a living being?

From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Apr 29 2003 - 16:24:02 BST

  • Next message: johnny moral: "Re: MD Undeniable Facts"

    Hi Paul, DMB,
     
    Paul, I didn't noticed any more irritation than usual. Anyway, I hope you
    continue to make your case in the future.

    > Pirsig writes:
    > Lila is a cohesion of changing static patterns of
    > Quality. There isn't any more to her than that. Ch 11
    >
    > Pirsig writes:
    > Static patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust
    > to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that.
    > Ch 13
    >
    > Paul said:
    > So the point is: If you add the statements together,
    > Lila is no more than a cohesion of static patterns of
    > Quality, therefore Lila can't perceive or adjust to
    > Dynamic Quality.
     
     dmb says:
    > This is easy. The heart of the issue centers on two key phrases: "a cohesion
    > of static patterns" and "static patterns can't by themselves". Think of the
    > cohesion as a forest. Elsewhere in the book, Pirsig describes persons as
    > forests of static patterns, meaning a collection of various static patterns
    > from various levels. That is the MOQ's definition of people. It is only the
    > constituent static patterns in isolation, by themselves, that can't respond.
    > Seen this way, the two statements don't contradict each other in any way.

    Steve:
    Isn't a cohesion of static patterns still a static pattern? My suggestion
    is that the emergence of a new cohesion of patterns is the Quality event
    (what would be in SOM to MOQ transition terms "a response to DQ"). Such a
    cohesion is a synergistic new pattern which is also a pattern of patterns,
    (thus it is sq). It is not just a collection of patterns, it is a new
    higher level pattern where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

    Any new pattern will include but transcend all lower level patterns. I am
    not at all convinced that such a new pattern could only emerge on the
    intellectual level as the statement, "only humans can respond to DQ" seems
    to suggest.

    It makes sense to me to think of all patterns being driven toward
    self-transcendence in forming such cohesions where this drive itself is DQ.
    So patterns are created through DQ and also evolve toward DQ. (And without
    DQ, sq has no meaning. Right, Johnny?). In short, my answer to your
    question about what responds to DQ is "all static patterns." (Of course, I
    would certainly fall in DMB category of people to be skeptical of. Heck,
    I'd put myself there.)

    Also, I agree with Wim about the different versions of the MOQ that are
    presented in Lila and the need to read Pirsig more interactively and
    creatively than a Fundamentalist reads the Bible.

    Thanks,
    Steve

    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 29 2003 - 19:29:32 BST