MAGNUS, MARCO AND FOCI GROUP.
Magnus wrote (in response to this part of my message)
> > .......... The unity combined with separatedness is
> > there right before our eyes - no mysticism involved.
> Right! The only mystical about it is when the experience is viewed
> through SOM glasses. It forces the viewer to shift viewpoint now and
> then to follow the experience through the levels. The dimensional
> view however, lets the experience assume all four levels at once.
Right YOU are Magnus! I completely share your observation here as
well as the rest about the interpretation richness that "simple" data
may give rise to.(The "Crazy Gods" film I know well and we could have
talked a lot about that, it truly makes you think.) Wonder if not the
whole problem list is based on the SOM-glasses effect?
.............................................
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001
Marco wrote
> 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.
Hi Marco,
Good to see your entry on the level issue. I see a true
Quality Metaphysician in it, so when I comment on certain points it's
just fellow scholarly comments :-).
Re. your first paragraph above. Agreement. The levels are levels of
experience (experience=quality). In its time we had a small
controversy over this point based on my misunderstanding of your
"experience" as a solely intellect business. You know my caution
about seeing Q-intellect the same way as SOM-intellect. It may
surface again below, but not seriously.
> 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).
Yes, but intellect's patterns aren't more "ghostly" than any other
pattern. According to our "carbon agreement" the Quality idea which
isn't primarily ....splitting of experience into four levels ....but
Dynamic and Static Quality is intellectual, but perhaps an
intellectual pattern that will "go off on a purpose of itself".
I agree about us not sure ....etc.(not to-morrow though:), but as said
it is not the level explanation which is the "soul" of the MOQ, but
the DQ/SQ shift. In case another "explanation of the universe" aspire
to be a new METAPHYSICS it must present a different base. Adding or
subtracting number of levels, or shuffling around the sequence of ..
or whatever, is solidly within the Q-universe. Even by saying "...the
best static latch ...etc" you demonstrate that the Quality
Metaphysics is in the process of taking hold ...and that's just
splendid.
> 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.
Agreement!
> Possible "machine codes" for the other levels:
> EMOTIONS for the social level.
> LANGUAGE for the intellectual level.
You know my Interaction/Sensation/Emotion/Reason sequence?
I call them "expressions" of each level, but perhaps "machine code"
is a better designation. However there is a language/reason
inconsistency ...or? This we must discuss further. What do you say?
> [is it possible to talk about a machine code for the inorganic
> level? Force?]
Yes, why not force? Magnus offered "interaction" (when I asked for for
suggestions. Because it rhymed he said) and I have come to appreciate it
more and more. Interaction (or influence/exchange of forces) is the very
heart of the inorganic pattern.
> 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.
General agreement, but a hair-spitting point: The lower level
continues into the upper. Biology is limited to DNA yet it continues
as the base of the social level - and so on upwards. Intellect
may be called "reasonable/emotionally-glued-together/matter
organisms", and a Q-development beyond intellect will include
intellect's basic value (be it language or reason?). No speechless
irrationally :-) .
> 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>>
Right!
> 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.
Yes, the Intellect is STATIC too. A profoundly true 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.
Agree! Particularly about each pattern filling the environment
(imposing itself on reality)
> 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
Hmmm. Must think about this. Looks a little superfluous at first
glance, but who knows...Marco never serves insubstantial stuff.
> 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
Likewise.
> 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.
As said I see a little complication in introducing this, but please
explore it freely.
> 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.
This I support 100 %
> 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)
110% agreement (if possible). About Struan I like him better now than
when he professed to be interested in the MOQ, his
insistence on the unity of experience contrasted to his “supporting
the S/O dichotomy...” shows the problem. Yes you may be right
about Pirsig too. To the master the Quality interpretation is ingenious
while a SOMist will see the bio-socio link as an "ugly complication".
> 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.
This part is so extremely interesting that I must return to it in a
separate post.Till then thanks Marco.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST