From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Sat Apr 17 2004 - 20:29:16 BST
Hi Mark,
Hoom. Let's stick with this analogy of the symphony orchestra, because I
think it's a good one.
Mark 17-4-04 b: Hi Sam, what does 'Hoom' mean?
Sam quotes Mark:
> Mark 17-4-04: Sam, this is based on a fundamental mistake of yours regarding
> the MoQ. Levels ARE patterns. A level is a static repertoire of patterns of
> value.
I don't think levels are patterns; they are abstracted descriptions of common
features of patterns.
Mark 17-4-04 b: This is wrong. I should remind you of your claim that you
feel your Eudaimon MoQ to have made only minor changes, leaving the building
blocks of the Standard MoQ intact. Now you are suggesting that patterns of value
are not present in the MoQ evolutionary levels. This is not a minor change. To
continue...
Sam:
Thus the inorganic level is a class of patterns that share the attribute of
inorganic. Which I think
is what you're saying with that last sentence above, although it seems to
contradict your assertion
that 'levels are patterns'.
Mark 17-4-04 b: The MoQ says Levels are composed of static patterns of value.
Therefore, it is not contradictory to say the Organic level is composed of a
repertoire of static Organic patterns. The entire repertoire is One level,
just as One Section of an Orchestra is composed of Woodwind or Percussion
patterns.
Sam:
A rock is a pattern of value at the inorganic level. The inorganic
level - if it is a pattern at all - is an intellectual pattern of value.
Isn't that what you're
saying in your other post?
Mark 17-4-04 b: A rock is not a pattern, it is made of patterns of inorganic
value. Thus, in Lila, Pirsig describes a glass of water as being composed of
Inorganic patterns.
'Rock' is a linguistic convention.
Sam quotes Mark:
> Let us use a simple analogy: The Symphony Orchestra.
> The Symphony Orchestra has a Woodwind section, a String section, a Percussion
> section, and a Brass section. Let us assume these sections correspond to the
> four levels of the MoQ?
> Any particular instrument must be tuned; it must be in a best tension with
> itself; it must 'be' well. Just as one instrument may 'be' well does not make it
> a new instrument does it? No. To be in tune is a good instrument.
> And so with ensemble paying - Eudaimonia is the Orchestra playing as a whole.
> Good Ensemble playing is not a new Orchestra, it is an Orchestra playing
> well.
> You make a simple mistake, but one which colours your whole description of
> Eudaimonia.
Well, that's not how I envisage eudaimonia.
Mark 17-4-04 b: This may be so, but it is how the MoQ sees what may be said
to be Eudaimonia. I do not feel an enquiry into Eudaimonia as a profitable one?
Sam:
I see it as precisely analagous to one section of the
orchestra, NOT the ensemble playing in harmony.
Mark 17-4-04 b: One section of an Orchestra cannot play a Symphony. I should
have thought that was obvious Sam?
Sam:
Although, to pursue it further, it may be more like a lead violinist or soloist in the middle
of a symphony, ie it is that which 'orchestrates' the
remainder (in the way that the higher levels dominate the lower).
Mark 17-4-04 b: DQ is the Orchestration, for DQ is not part of the Orchestra
- the Orchestra being only composed of Static patterns. Remember that our
analogy is dealing with Static patterns only?
Sam quotes Mark:
> Mark 17-4-04: The term Character here is, in the analogy of the Symphony
> Orchestra, Ensemble playing. It is not the Woodwind, String, Percussion or Brass
> section.
No. That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that character (ie the
eudaimonic pattern of value existing in a particular person) is equivalent to a section of the
orchestra.
Mark 17-4-04 b: I know. But you are wrong in what you say.
Sam:
Structurally eudaimonia is exactly equivalent to Pirsig's intellect, in my conception of
the MoQ.
Mark 17-4-04 b: Eudaimonia is a the term used to conclude an enquiry into w
hat the good life is for Human beings. The MoQ says Human beings are 4 static
levels evolving in response to DQ; the good life cannot be one level responding
to DQ in isolation, but must include all the other patterns as well.
Intellectual patterns may dominate, and if they do, and if they achieve a
total balance, then the result is Eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is the result of a life
tuning process, rather like a violin may be tuned to its best tension. Again,
you confuse what the Intellectual level is with what it can do.
Sam quotes Mark:
> You confuse what the Orchestra IS with what the Orchestra is DOING.
> What the Orchestra is, is four sections; each section has instruments; each
> instrument is tuned, that is to say, each instrument is at its best.
> Just as a best tuned instrument is not a 'new' instrument, so a best
> Orchestra is not a 'New' Orchestra.
I don't think you've understood my essay. I have wondered why you're
disagreeing with me so much,
given what you say in your Edge of Chaos essay. Your arguing with a fiction
of your own creation,not with my proposal.
Mark 17-4-04 b: Please forgive me Sam, but i am not here to agree with what
ever may be proposed without question?
I can see the difference between us is subtle, but it is fundamentally
significant.
Now, you have not addressed my point above; a un-tuned violin and a tuned
violin differ in Quality. An Orchestra must be composed of tuned instruments, and
then we are ready to play.
By analogy, Eudaimonia is a tuned life - it is a life best lived. That is a
tautology isn't it? So, how do we analyse what a good life is without simply
saying it is the best?
First, we begin with the MoQ description of people: 4 levels + DQ.
Second, we 'tune' them: Coherence in and across levels.
As we are all individuals, there cannot be Standard best life - a one size
fits all? A best life is, in the MoQ, the best coherence for each of us, and
this may be analogous to the Orchestra playing a Symphony - we each play our own
Symphony in response to DQ.
DQ tunes each element in the event stream, and DQ is the goal of life:
Event stream (DQ) (SODV) --------> Coherence <-------- DQ Evolutionary goal
(Lila)
Sam quotes Mark:
> Mark 17-4-04: Now that your mistake has been identified and understood, we
> can see where you have gone astray: What Intellect does may be valued as either
> better or worse. Better Intellectual activity is not 'New' Intellectual
> activity, it is Intellectual activity being well, rather as a violin may be tuned
> poorly or tuned well. And the same may be said for each level in its turn.
> In the Ensemble playing of the Orchestra, the whole may play poorly or well,
> and playing well does not constitute a 'new' Orchestra.
> There is no Eudaimon level in the MoQ - However, there is Coherence in and
> across patterns of value, and it is the nature of Coherence - ensemble playing -
> which may be appreciated aesthetically as a life lived well.
Eudaimonia in my conception is not the equivalent of coherence in yours. I
see them harmonising quite naturally. I think if you grasped what my essay is about you
might agree.
Sam
Mark 17-4-04 b: This doesn't tell me anything? Tell me precisely what you
mean Sam?
I shall read your essay again, but i cannot guarantee i shall agree any more?
Mark
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 : Sat Apr 17 2004 - 22:55:30 BST