MD Coherence and MOQ levels. part 2

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Fri Jun 11 2004 - 20:02:03 BST

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "Re: MD MOQ and Gauguin"

    [Part. 2.]

    Sam has been more constructive and greatly encouraging regarding coherence,
    and i thank him for this.

    Sam's own view on this months Topic question has been structured as follows:
    1. Pirsig describes the MoQ as being a study of static latches, or static
    Quality. They are a description or classification of static Quality; a
    description of particular classes of patterns of value.
    2. Levels form a moral hierarchy as static Quality evolves. There is an
    ascent from the inorganic to the biological to the social to the fourth
    level. This
    ascent is led by DQ, and is geared around freedom.
    3. Levels are not absolutely discrete; there are ways in which they relate to

    each other. "They all operate at the same time and in ways that are almost
    independent of each other." The way that they relate is through a 'machine
    language interface.'
    4. There is a 'purpose' involved at each level which may be expressed in
    terms of laws; different levels emerging to give more freedom in the context
    of
    those laws.
    5. There seems scope for suggesting that there is a particular pattern which

    is the primary 'vehicle' for the operation of DQ at each level.

    So a level in the MoQ is: a classification of static patterns of value that
    fits into the
    hierarchy of evolution led by DQ, which relates to the other levels via a
    'machine language
    interface' and whose purpose can be classified according to a particular
    'law' or 'laws', and which is most easily understood by consideration of the

    'vehicle' on which DQ operates.

    Mark 25-5-04: I have suggested to Sam that he may be taking a literal reading

    of the software/hardware analogy? I suggest coherence best describes
    excellent states irrespective of patterning. i.e. SQ-SQ coherence.
    The thin isthmus which separates each level may be seen to be exceptional
    coherence, which is very close to DQ. This will allow us to postulate DQ as
    the
    initiator of a new level, thus removing any logical inconsistencies which
    would
    arise if the previous level is given as a starting point. DQ also provides
    freedom for new levels in increasing coherent states.

    Sam 25-5-04: DNA, as a 'balanced' mechanism, is the vehicle that the weak
    subatomic forces adopted to steer to 'all sorts of freedom by selecting first
    one
    bonding preference and then another.' (See the end of chapter 11; note that
    here Pirsig actually describes the 'vehicle' as a DNA + protein combination,
    static and dynamic in >coherent< harmony)
    (Sam winks to Mark)

    Mark 25-5-04: I like this. Sam has identified coherence to be the vehicle.
    This vehicle is elsewhere described as an isthmus.

    Sam 25-5-04: Your (dmb's) picking up of the note/symphony language is spot
    on; so DNA is a 'note' that the inorganic level has managed to create (giving

    itself more freedom) but the existence of notes allows for the existence of
    symphonies, which are composed of notes. The interesting thing is not the
    existence of notes but their patterning according to the classification by
    level -
    that's what makes the difference between a 'note' that happens randomly (a
    sound
    which is meaningless; the inorganic level) and a 'note' within a symphony (a

    sound which is meaningful; the biological level). Although the DNA evolved to

    give more freedom at the inorganic level, it became open to DQ in a radically

    new way - and we have all of biology as a result.

    Mark 25-5-04: This looks to have got it. I like Sam's underscoring of the
    crucial issue of randomness and meaning. Is this not coherence?
    Increasing coherence is increasing freedom within a static/Dynamic envelope.
    Sam: 4. There is a 'purpose' involved at each level.

    I feel my view ties things together neatly, elegantly and with great economy
    of explanation.
    dmb's refusal to engage with the ideas expressed in my initial post on this
    Topic, and then to avoid these issues further by misleading the Focus group
    is totally unacceptable in my view.

    All the best,
    Mark

    Mark 11-6-04: I look forward to hearing from you dmb. Thank you.

    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 : Fri Jun 11 2004 - 20:05:43 BST