MF,
If the purpose of the month is to come to one (or few) conclusions
(static latches) about the nature of the levels, I offer my definition.
I posted a similar one few months ago, but I've changed many parts.
Maybe I have more doubts than certainties about it, but it's the best I
can.
Hope it can be a good beginning for a discussion oriented to the goal we
have this month.
--------------------------------
My Definition of Level
IMO, that when we refer to a "level", this is primarily a LEVEL OF
EXPERIENCE. We can experience everything as part of every level. Bo
explained it very well last 19 January 2000 talking about the Leonardo's
Monna Lisa: it can be seen Inorganic, Biological, Social or Intellectual
depending on the "Focus" of the observer. At the same way the observer
is a four level entity, depending on the focus. Generally, every Quality
event creates an every-level experience.
IMO, THE SPLIT OF EXPERIENCE IN FOUR LEVEL IS WHOLLY INTELLECTUAL. A
ghost, just like the gravity law. I mean, it's a good intellectual trick
used by Pirsig to explain universe. We can't be sure that tomorrow
someone will come to explain the universe diversely, offering a better
solution, but, If we are here, it's probably because we all find in this
explanation the best static latch we have ever found. Or, at least, one
of the bests (where "best" means here harmonic, simple and matching the
real life experience).
Every level is identified by:
a. A BASIC VALUE
A "very refined" set of patterns (of the below level) level that is the
basis for ALL the patterns of the new level, as it is able to carry the
necessary information. Pirsig gives us the example of DNA, as the
inorganic "machine code" for the biological patterns.
Possible "machine codes" for the other levels:
EMOTIONS for the social level.
LANGUAGE for the intellectual level.
[is it possible to talk about a machine code for the inorganic level?
Force?]
The basic value is also the limit of the level: my biological self is
limited by the potentiality of DNA; my intellectual self is limited by
the potentiality of language.
b. A "CLASS" OF STATIC PATTERNS OF VALUE:
In MOQ terms, patterns are small pieces of Dynamic Quality turned into
a Static form. At one given level, all
patterns are similar, that means:
<<MADE OF THE SAME BASIC VALUE>>
c. THE PATTERNS BEHAVIOR
Patterns interaction with reality determines their behavior. The
importance of the behavior resides in that science use to classify
patterns by their behavior, in order to investigate their interaction
with reality. This classification determines that intellect
investigates the static side of behavior (i.e. the regularities), and
tends to consider the dynamic side of behavior as unimportant, or an
error of observation.
The purpose of the static behavior is to preserve the basic value. The
purpose of the dynamic behavior is to create new value. Basically,
every pattern tends to replicate itself and to compete/cooperate with
other patterns in order to fill the environment.
Examples of static/dynamic behavior:
At the inorganic level: Rest/Motion
At the biologic level: Replication/Mutation
At the social level: Tradition/Revolution
At the intellectual level: Method/Creativity
d. THE ENVIRONMENT
It's the scenario of the intra-level experiences. IMO it can't be seen
as a simple pattern, nor it is exactly a level.
My suggestions for the 4 environments:
Space-time universe
Ecosystem
Political-Economic System
Public Opinion
As Roger often suggests, maybe Pirsig gives a great importance to
patterns competition, while he forgets to remark the importance of
cooperation. IMO adding such concept of environment could be a good way
to introduce the importance of cooperation: it's enough to think what
happens within the biologic ecosystem, where cooperation is probably
more important than competition.
Moreover, Pirsig gives a huge importance to inter-level struggles, while
IMO (thanks to Roger) we should investigate better the possible
cooperation between patterns of diverse levels.
e. ERA
It's the evolutionary step in which a class of patterns becomes
leader of the evolution. Patterns already do exist before the beginning
of their era, but only within their era they can be free to follow their
behavior. I'd say that the era begins when patterns end to build their
behavior. That is: obviously intellectual patterns where existing also
3000 years ago, but only when finally the intellectual behavior has been
established (Galileo) as Method/Creativity, intellect demonstrated to
society it was time to concede the preeminence.
-------------
In the end, few words about the levels relationship.
It's a mistake any identification of Inorganic level with matter, or
intellectual level with mind... and so on. It's another map, and has
different coordinates. This is the root of many misunderstandings, like
in the recent Bo-Struan conflict. But I admit that even Pirsig maybe
fell in this mistake, as Struan points out.
"There is no direct scientific connection between mind and matter.
Instead they are linked through social and biological patterns."
(Pirsig, quoted by Struan)
I like this vision of levels as "dimensions".It seems a great correction
and I agree about the possible unity of static patterns. But IMO, if we
accept this picture, a lot of things must be seen in a different light.
One for all, many argued in the past the impossibility of any direct
interaction between non-contiguous levels. Pirsig himself seems to be
onto this position. Confront the "Figure 4" he offers in the SODaV
paper.
tks for your attention
Marco.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST