Hello everyone
"Jonathan B. Marder" wrote:
>
> Hi Dan G. and all,
>
> DAN G.
> > Since I am familiar with the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea (from maps
> > only, I've never been there) I can conceptually agree with you and
> > assume you are north of those places and going "down" there
> constitutes
> > a southward trip. However, from my perspective here in the States you
> > are traveling OVER to your ultimate destination.
>
> I think that this misses the point - I was talking about DOWN in terms
> of elevation - down being where gravity takes you. We know that things
> spontaneously fall, but never spontaneously defy gravity, thus it is not
> the same as North vs. South.
Dan:
If we let go of something and it falls and we call that falling
"spontaneous" then if we do not let go of whatever we are holding is the
not-falling also "spontaneous"? In fact, an object only falls until it
comes to rest, so it might be better put that the resting state is
spontaneously achieved rather than the falling. Once again, however, it
is all a matter of perspective as to whether an object is falling "down"
or "up". From one perspective we are all at this very moment hanging
upside down from the earth, held in place by gravity. We are not being
held down by gravity, we are being held up!
This month's topic asks: "Explain why the Dynamic is more moral than the
static. We cannot leave this hanging. For example, we could grade
morality, ala Ken [Wilber], based upon the degree of pattern as a whole
and as a part. The problem here is that this is not just adding to the
MOQ, it is CHANGING it. However, it solves LOTS of problems!"
What I am getting at in my reply above is that we cannot say exactly why
Dynamic is more moral than static for we are trapped in static
quality conceptual reality. In a way I am merely playing devil's
advocate to get at a more expansive picture of Quality. We must have
perspective in order to
function. The earth's gravity does not give us that perspective of
walking down a street; our experience of earth's gravity DOES though.
If morality is Good then our actions must be the best they can be at all
times,
period. There is no grading morality but only the perspective of
morality, which necessarily takes into account the time and place of the
actions being accounted for. If one believes in Quality then there is no
choice but to pursue Quality... anything less is simply not good enough.
A Dynamic solution to a problem is only partially quantifiable as the
solution itself tends to spontaneously evolve; by the time it's written
down or even thought of the solution has already spontaneously evolved
into something else and all that is left is lingering traces of that
which functions partially, or most of the time. The spontaneity the
solution would otherwise tend towards has been lost in stasis.
>
> I already pointed this out to Dan and we had a short private exchange.
> However, I now see that Dan raises a couple of important points.
>
> While I would say that the downward force of gravity represents a
> universal experience/value, Dan points out that the way it is perceived
> is not completely universal.
Dan:
The force of the sun's and the moon's gravity bring about tidal action
on earth by pulling "up" from our normal perspective here. So gravity
pulling "down" is definitely not completely universal from our earthly
perspective.
>
> DAN G.
> > Jonathan's post intrigues me and I will attempt to clarify what I mean
> > when I say there are no choices to be made. If we consider initial
> > directions such as "up" or "down" as a choice then perhaps we should
> > clarify just what those directions refer to. A plane goes up in the
> air
> > and lands down on the ground from our perspective here on earth.
> > However, from a crew orbiting the earth in a space shuttle, the plane
> > would fly down below and land down below.
>
> Dan's point is reinforced by something he wrote to me privately:
> >An astronaut in [freefall] about the earth may let go
> >of an object and it also falls free along with the astronaut, giving
> the
> >opinion of zero gravity when in fact gravity is just about as strong
> >"up" there as it is here on earth.
>
> According to Aristotle, an object needed a "force" just to keep it in
> motion.
> Not so for Newton - a force was only needed to change the motion e.g. an
> object accelerating under gravity.
> Not so for Einstein - an object accelerating under gravity is in "free
> fall", following the path determined by the curvature of space.
Dan:
Please see below.
> Jonathan:
> Now that is cleared up, I want to go to the real reason for my post,
> again prompted by something Dan wrote:
>
> DAN G.
> > For instance, if we make a trip from here ---- to ---- there a
> straight
> > line seems best. If our course takes us from here /\/\/\/\ to
> > /\/\/\/\ there in a zig zag line, it would seem as if the trip would
> > take much longer.
>Jonathan:
> The image that comes to mind is the image of a yacht tacking against the
> wind, using the force of the wind to defy the force of the wind. As for
> gravity, you can't "tack" against it from side to side...[snip]
Dan:
A spacecraft in orbit about the earth DOES tack sideways against
gravity. It is using the very force of gravity to defy gravity just as a
ship uses the force of the wind to defy the wind. It would seem
plausible to state that Dynamic Quality tends to operate sideways and
never directly. When we walk across a room we are tacking sideways
against gravity. Life itself tends to tack against gravity it would
seem.
Jonathan:
[snip]... but the waterway
> lock system Pirsig describes in Lila provides a way of using gravity to
> defy gravity: Phaedrus was sailing downwards towards the sea, but
> someone sailing in the opposite direction would use the gravity-driven
> flow of water into the locks to lift their boat UP.
> Both examples show how we can often control and exploit forces to defy
> them.
Dan:
One might think of a lever in action and consider where the force of
that lever comes to bear, and how. It isn't really a matter of up or
down but of applying correct force at right angles to the relationship
desired. The ships do rise up and down in the Lila locks, but the force
brought to bear on the ships is applied at a right angle, i.e., the flat
rising or lowing water applied to the perpendicular bottom of the ship,
just as the force brought to bear on a spacecraft in orbit is at a right
angle to the force being exerted on it by
earths gravity.
We see the same right angle action in Phaedrus' diagram of the MOQ; four
boxes interacting with each other only at right angles. This scheme has
merit for it illustrates how the inorganic level can have little or no
influence on the social level while the biological level does have
influence.
>Jonathan:
> Yet another example of may come from certain martial arts, where one
> deftly uses the opponents own strength to overcome him.
True, that. Same right angle effect.
>
> DAN G.
> >If one ponders this notion long enough it becomes obvious that only the
> >destination is important and the method of arriving, or the course we
> >take to get there, is not.
> Jonathan:
> Here I disagree - sometimes the method and choices during the journey
> actually determine the destination, just as in the nautical examples I
> gave.
Dan:
A Dynamic approach to a destination tends to come about at right angles
from the point of departure. Therefore to consider the force of gravity
as a downward force is to misconstrue the primary way Universe operates.
It is not. We do not counteract a downward force of gravity by pulling
up, we always tack against it at right angles.
I feel this tends to be important to the MOQ though I am not exactly
sure how,
yet, though just in writing down what I've written I sense some progress
perhaps. That is how Dynamic Quality arises though... you think it is
here, then it's gone...
poof...
> Thanks for the stimulation Dan .
And thank you too Jonathan.
Dan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST