Hi Squad
I guess nobody will be surprised seeing me writing, "Of course it's a science!",
to the question of this month. Just try to bear with me for a while and I'll try
to explain why.
First of all, and this is not very original, things normally doesn't fit in one
level alone. This doesn't mean that there is a fuzzy border between every two
levels though. We are never forced to decide whether a wolf is social or biological.
Now, I'm going to, for the n:th time describe the dimensional way of looking at
the levels. Unlike Jonathan, I'm reluctant to refer to old posts. Every time I
write something, I do it a little different, and perhaps this little difference
will make it come through clearer.
Anyway, the dimensional view of the levels has nothing to do with art. It's a
view of the static levels, so the DQ is disregarded. If we start with the first
level, the inorganic, it only expands in one dimension, or direction. So if we
apply that to the forces of the inorganic level, gravity, electromagnetism and
so on, all of these forces only expands in one metaphysical dimension. I.e. they
are ultimately composed of the same "ground stuff of reality", inorganic quality.
This hypothesis is not yet proven though, but this is what physicists is calling
the GUT (Grand Unified Theory). If proven, I would take it as a strong indicator
of the validity of the MoQ levels. And I would certainly take it as proof and
definition of the first level.
Now, when we start expanding into the second, biological level, the straight line
starts to build upwards in a straight angle to the first dimension. The result is
a rectangle that has both length and height. An example of such a "rectangle" is
an amoeba. It shows all the characteristics of every other inorganic pattern, i.e.
it has mass, gravity and so on. But it also has a few senses of the biological
level. It can sense what it should eat and what not to eat. I was just looking
at the equalizer of the WinAmp on my desktop, that's also a good analogy of what
an amoeba is. When a song is playing, the equalizer's different bands are jumping
up and down just as the amoeba's senses are acting and reacting. But when the
song is over, the equalizer bands vanishes, just as the biological patterns of
the amoeba disappears when it dies. The inorganic is still around though.
When viewing the levels like this, the inter dependency between the levels
becomes more than just an enforced rule. It a rule of necessity, like "people
cannot live without air", not an enforced rule like "basketball players cannot
run more than two steps without bouncing the ball".
The dimensional view continues to the social level by extending the rectangle
inwards to form a cube. In this cube we have inorganic, biological and social
patterns of value. The wolf in the beginning of the post is not only social and
biological, it's also inorganic.
Going on to the fourth level makes it a little harder for the imagination, but
the procedure is the same. The fourth level extends in a direction orthogonal,
i.e. in a straight angle, to every other level.
I won't go much deeper into the different levels 'cause that's not what this
month is about. My aim with this post was to point out the scientific aspects
of the MoQ levels. I think they are quite compelling and appealing.
There's one thing about the original question I'm a little concerned about
though:
"the MoQ doesn't even claim to give a method of "deducing" what patterns fit
where."
Nah, perhaps not, but I think there's a good reason for it. Such rules of
deducing what patterns fit where must either use a language known to the
reader, i.e. SOM lingo or some other language, i.e. MoQese. If the rules
use SOM lingo, the rules would be as flawed as the SOM and nothing would
be gained. We're suspended in language, remember? And if the rules use
MoQese, the rules would be a prerequisite to be able to understand the
rules. I think we might have a problem here.
Magnus
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST