Jonathan, Elephant and Foci.
Jonathan wrote:,
> I've been too busy this month to write to either forum. I usually
> only
> start composing a post if I can expect an hour or two undisturbed, and
> this just hasn't happened recently (except while I have been
> sleeping). However, the problem I raised this month has been very much
> on my mind, and I have also written on it many times before. I would
> thus like to suggest an approach to resolving the problem:
Good, I thought that you had been called upon to join the Israel
government.
> <<<1.3 Pirsig has previously made it quite clear that patterns of
> static quality can all be placed within the four levels of the MoQ,
> but he also says that morality operates between the levels. Thus
> morality seems to be quite different from patterns of quality and it's
> a contradiction to say that quality and morality are the same
> thing.>>>
Oh, the "ethics" again.
> The way Pirsig first describes the levels and illustrates them via the
> difference between computer hardware and software, the levels seem to
> be orthogonal, thus it is difficult to understand how there can be any
> inter-level conflict whatever. On the other hand, the higher levels
> clearly relate t lower level patterns. Thus, I have previously
> described the relationship as one of the higher level MEDIATING
> conflicts between lower level patterns.
This interpretation of the levels I share, the upper level is the one
that chooses and picks among the lower level's values.
............................................
Elephant wrote:
> Well, my question is: are the levels actually patterns themselves?
Hi
Better reply here than in the MD where you have taken on Struan.
Without delving too much into your own reason for asking this let
me say that I find comparing the levels with the spatial dimensions
very useful. Are height, breath etc anything in themselves? Does it
make sense re. the "nature" of the levels?
> 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.
I have a feeling when you speak about "we see the world....coming
to mind" that you see everything as mind in a SOM idealist sense.
In other words that the intellectual level is THINKING and that the
SOM is one thinking-pattern and that the QM is another - both
different outlooks from the homunculus MIND inside our heads.
This is not (my idea) of the Q-intellect.
> 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.
I guess there is much in the vaults, and we all could do with a quiet
time there.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST