Hi.
I've a question for you all. I'm addressing an acknowledged difficulty
here:
> 1) The levels are not defined well. As such, users of the MOQ come
> to wide disparities in view points. This issue is complicated by
> the fact that things are often a collection of patterns -- sometimes
> of varying levels. This second issue is not a defect, but it puts
> even more emphasis on the necessity of clear definitions of the
> levels
Well, my question is: are the levels actually patterns themselves?
OK, the reason I ask this is that, when you try and think of what else they
could really be, nothing much comes to mind. What, after all, is our notion
of Organic except for a set of habits or static patterns about how we see
the world? And it seems to me that if the evolutionary 'levels' of static
patterns are themselves static patterns, this does alot to explain why we
find it more difficult to use them to solve every kind of problem in our
discussions than did Prisig.
Because when you are having a dialogue with yourself you can be (if of
sufficiently analytical turn of mind) quite clear about your own habits, and
recognising those static patterns can be a useful way of thinking about and
structuring your veiw on areas of disagreement. Applied to ones own world
veiw, they can certainly desolve a lot of otherwise troubling problems. But
when we bring the levels out for general use, then, hey presto, we suddenly
find that everyone associates slightly different patterns of value, and
varieties of patterns, with words like, say, 'Intellect', or 'Soceity'.
Maybe, in the end, those really difficult problems we thought we had licked
will come back as disagreements about what, say, being 'organic' means.
I don't want this to seem like looking into the abyss here - I mean, I don't
think this is the end of MOQ! But I do think this is an interesting
question: if the levels aren't themselves patterns, then what are they?
Well, ok, so we call them patterns. But if they are themselves patterns,
then what makes them the sort of universal patterns that we can confidently
refer and resort to in arguments, without constantly having to define and
redefine what we mean? Because if they aren't particularly secure patterns,
aren't any more secure than anything else, then the whole level thing
doesn't help us.
Now maybe we are just falling down on the job of definition ('let's work
overtime and maybe we can still do it'). But it certainly seems to me that
the levels are too pattern-like to ever be the ultimate foundation some
people want them to be. So where is that secure point then? You will
probably expect my answer. From a Platonic point of veiw there aren't going
to be any sure answers in the whole area of patterns of value (the realm of
opinion). The only security, or enlightenment, is in an analysis of what
pattern making is as such. I guess we can all agree that the patterns are
metaphysical and need to be discussed in a metaphysics - Plato is with
Prisig Here, and I think this is a point which Murdoch makes very well. I'm
no materialist - there's nothing these patterns could be but metaphysical.
And like Prisig says, we need to sketch out how the metaphysical patterns
emerge from value, which is the bedrock of our metaphysics. But in terms of
definite conclusions about the patterns once they have emerged, I would
still think that philosophical Metaphysics can only really provide final
answers in the limited analytic field - that's one that can seem empty to
alot of people. The emptiness is rather the point though. It is full
because it is empty - very Zen.
Maybe we can talk a bit about my question: are levels patterns? Or maybe
(as a newcomer) I will get directed to the archive where you have already
done it to death.
from your
Puzzled Elephant.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST