Re: MD The Individual in the MOQ

Date: Thu Apr 15 2004 - 02:16:52 BST

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD junk or politics on this list"

    Mark says:
    First, let us examine what an individual is in the MoQ.
    An individual Human being is composed of four evolutionary related
    levels of static value:
    1. The Inorganic.
    2. The Organic.
    3. The Social.
    4. The Intellectual.

    DM: I would be interested to know what others think is an appropriate
    of an individual in MOQ terms. I personally do not think the above is
    adequate and jumps
    in too quickly to the levels without expressing the fit with SQ/DQ.

    Mark 15-4-04: Now hang on David M. please? This is unfair!
    I've written many times that patterns are evolving in an evolutionary
    relationship with DQ. This should be understood without question? I hardly ever talk
    about patterns in isolation from their evolutionary relationship with DQ, but
    on one of those rare occasions i do so, this happens? Have you never seen this

    Event stream (DQ) (SODV) --------> Coherence <-------- DQ as goal of
    Evolution (Lila)

    SODV = The Robert Pirsig paper, Subjects, Objects, Data and Values.
    Lila is the novel in which the MoQ is developed and presented.

    If you take even a cursory glance at The edge of Chaos, (TEOC) you would get
    a full description of the individual in MoQ terms: Coherence is between
    patterns of value (All patterns, All levels.)

    So, If you take the above description of the static levels of a Human being:
    1. The Inorganic.
    2. The Organic.
    3. The Social.
    4. The Intellectual.
    and place them where the word, 'Coherence' is in the diagram, you have a
    Human being as Intellectually creative, socially contextualised, biologically
    organised Inorganic transpatterned value evolution. (Or something like that!!)

    David M:
    To get to something that sounds more like what it is to be a human being
    I think we
    need to return to examining the reality of experience. The only
    experience we have
    is that of individual experience, outside of certain mystical or
    participatory experiences.
    It is due to the opening/clearing that we call 'experience' that it is
    possible to talk
    about an awareness of activity that can be characterised as possessing
    or static quality. As individuals we are always troubled by the
    choice that is at the heart of what is dynamic. We are confronted by
    condemned to choose, unable to live without steping forward into
    unchartered territory (i.e.
    dynamic activity), for us no instinctual certainty. Our bodies may
    conform to certain unchangeable
    biological patterns, but even our social activity is open to choice, we
    do not have to honour the
    father and mother if we decide not to, & even biology can be challenged
    as we choose not to procreate
    for example. Yet the world is full of pattern, but through knowledge we
    can understand these patterns
    and turn them to our own ends/values. And through our participatory
    understanding of dynamic activity
    we can even construct an understanding of how, through the evolution of
    levels, it has been possible
    for the cosmos to bring about the very mix of SQ and DQ that we are. As
    Pirsig says SQ is laid down
    in the wake of DQ. In as far as we participate in this human individuals
    are extremely significant beings
    a sentiment Pirsig also expresses. Where Mark seems to raise the value
    of the intellectual level above
    that of the dynamic individual I think he is slipping away from the
    mystical heart of the MOQ.
    What is the general view? And also Mark what say you?

    David M

    Mark 15-4-04: Dear David, May i indulge in a bit of conceit? The thing is, i
    am not naturally inclined to 'blow my own trumpet.' So, it kind of embarrasses
    me to keep pointing towards the essay, TEOC.
    One of the nice things about placing an essay in the forum, or so i
    anticipated, was that it would save me having to say the same things over and over. But
    this has not happened.
    Instead, all i ever seem to do is hear myself saying, 'I refer you to TEOC.'
    I suppose this is beginning to sound like abuse? "Hey YOU! Get yourself off
    to the edge of chaos!!" ;-)
    The other thing i keep doing is repeating myself over and over, because no
    one has read TEOC!

    Your post has saddened me, because i don't wish to be thought of as one who
    does not wish to always emphasis the mystic nature at the heart of the MoQ.
    Indeed, TEOC suggests that, and provides examples of, mundane, day to day
    activities like playing sport or playing music which may be performed as ways of
    following the way, the path, the Tao. Quality.

    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 : Thu Apr 15 2004 - 02:18:51 BST