Re: MD SQ-SQ coherence and the Biosphere.

Date: Wed Mar 24 2004 - 00:12:23 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: MD Diversity and Coherence."

    Hi Mark,

    What is evolving at the inorganic level? At the biological level are you
    aware of any new species lately? I haven't seen much evolution at the
    social level since the Civil Rights Act. As for the intellectual level,
    nothing has evolved in philosophy that I know of since Pirsig published
    "Lila." All the really new stuff has come from science and technology.
    What I'm driving at is that according to the MOQ, only living beings can
    respond to DQ. Evolution now is human-driven and isn't occurring at all
    levels simultaneously as claim.

    Mark 24-03-04: In response, i would ask you to consider, for an experiment, a
    different world?
    In this world, everything is evolving every second of the day, all around
    you. The Inorganic is evolving so slowly, as to appear to be standing idle. The
    Organic is evolving faster, but you would have to live 1000 years to notice it.
    The social is evolving faster still, but you have to look back on an entire
    life span to see the detail. The intellectual is evolving daily with the
    publication of new ideas and concepts. (Science is Intellectual value.)

    > MoQ terms this is described in two ways: 1. The event stream (DQ). (SODV)
    > 2. Static patterns migrating towards DQ. (Lila.)
    > Static patterns emerge from DQ and yet are migrating towards DQ.
    > We may accommodate these two apparently contradictory points by postulating
    > a relationship between SQ and DQ derived from experience: Coherence.

    As I said before, 'coherence' has to do with thoughts, not with
    relationships. (If you want to use 'coherence' as physicists do in
    describing laser light and such, it would be helpful to say so. But I
    don't know why you find it necessary to call upon scientific jargon to
    describe your theories. Pirsig uses good old plain English. :-)

    Mark 24-03-04: I honestly thought the term coherence was good old plain
    English. When thinking about stable impermanent structures i felt it was helpful to
    call them coherent.

    > In the Metaphysics of Quality, (Value is a synonym for Quality, so in the
    > above quote we may regard Value as Quality) Quality has two aspect, SQ and
    > DQ. Therefore, to paraphrase: 'Our structured reality is preselected on the
    > basis of a relationship between SQ and DQ.'

    I really don't see the significance of "relationship." If you split
    anything into two aspects or parts, there's bound to be a relationship
    between the parts.

    Mark 24-03-04: The significance of relationships between patterns is that
    they appear to become coherent. It can be argued that experience shows this to be
    the point where DQ is at work.
    You are not only surrounded by, but participate IN evolution as it is
    happening right now. You are evolving right now. That is to say, you are emerging
    from the event stream, and heading towards DQ right now. When this is going well,
    your patterns are coherent. If you are playing tennis and hitting the ball
    well, you are an excellent player - coherent.
    If, as you suggest, only living things can respond to DQ, and there is no
    simultaneous evolution, then my position becomes untenable.

    > Thought patterns cannot deal with DQ, but thought patterns ARE patterns,
    > and share a relationship with DQ as described above: 1. The event stream
    > (DQ). (SODV) 2. Static patterns migrating towards DQ. (Lila.)

    About this migration of static patterns towards DQ. The only place I find
    Pirsig talking like this specifically is about Lila and patterns of life.

    "Lila is composed of static patterns of value and these patterns are
    evolving towards Dynamic Quality . . . All life is a migration of static
    patterns of quality toward Dynamic Quality." (Lila-11).

    Later Pirsig writes:

    "And beyond that is an even more compelling reason; societies and thoughts
    and principles themselves are no more than sets of static patterns. These
    patterns cannot by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only
    a living being can do that."

    So the 'migration' is limited to living beings whereas your thesis seems to
    imply that its descriptive of the entire evolutionary process, including
    the evolution of the inorganic level. Something's amiss.

    > Mark 22-03-04: Thought is patterned. Patterns are migrating towards DQ.

    Patterns of life are migrating, not all patterns.

    Mark 24-03-04: If what you say is so, then my thesis is wrong.

    > Patterns emerge from DQ. These are accommodated in the term Coherence.
    > Coherence can be extreme - severe. This possibility is right outside
    > everyday experience, but when encountered, can be a revelation. An example
    > would be to be in the presence of a master artist. The coherence of a
    > master can influence (raise coherence of) the open student dramatically. In
    > exceptional situations, coherence may approach opaqueness to DQ:

    Let me put this in my own words and see if you agree. Patterns emerge from
    DQ. Sometimes when these patterns emerge in your presence you feel a sense
    of awe and wonder. You might even experience a feeling of unity with the
    whole world, a peak experience where words like patterns and DQ fall so
    far short of describing what you feel as to be meaningless. This
    experience of total bliss might happen as you listen to a concerto
    performed by master violinist.

    I hope this comes close. If not, I'm lost as to what you mean.

    Thanks for your patience.

    Best regards,

    Mark 24-03-04: Your description sounds good. However, i have attempted to
    accommodate DQ as motivation and DQ as goal of evolution in one 'nowness' i.e.
    Coherence. You can listen to a master violinist; he is already a highly coherent
    patterning, otherwise he/she would not be a master? Your pattern merge
    certainly, and in doing so are dragged into coherence.
    That's the way i would put it. But the problem of simultaneous evolution and
    that of only life responding to DQ must be settled otherwise my thinking over
    the last four or five years has been a mistake.

    I welcome your critique Platt.
    All the best,

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 24 2004 - 00:22:51 GMT