On 5 Jan 2001, Marco wrote:
> 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.
Marco and Group
The above last paragraph of your Jan 5 message was so far-
reaching that it required a separate post.
Unity at the static side (that the dimensional analogy suggestws)
sounds different from the emphasis that Pirsig puts on the conflict
and differences - you are right about that - but I think this has given
rise to difficulties. A notion of "metaphysical" divides between each
level (may) have made its way into our thinking. MOQ's only such
"slash" is the DQ/SQ one.
> 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.
Must things be seen differently? I am not sure, just let me stretch
the dimension analogy and see how far it will reach. Space IS the
three dimensions, so the existence of one- or two-dimensional
beings is impossible to visualize, yet several thought experiments
try to . "Line-land", "flat-land" and "high-land" are names I seem to
remember. The line-landers know nothing of the flat-landers' and so
on of higher dimensions. This sounds much like the MOQ level
relationship doesn't it?
In chapter 12 Pirsig says:
> "But although the four systems are exhaustive they are not
> exclusive.They all operate at the same time and in ways that are almost
> independent of each other. This classification of patterns is not
> very original, but the Metaphysics of Quality allows an
> assertion about them that is unusual. It says they are not
> continuous. They are discrete. They have very little to do with
> one another. Although each higher level is built on a lower one
> it is not an extension of that lower level. Quite the contrary.
> The higher level can often be seen to be in opposition to the
> lower level, dominating it, controlling it where possible for its
> own purposes".
Out of this quote, many interpretations may be extracted, but to
me the "operate at the same time" is of greatest importance.
A movement in space includes all dimensions (frames of reference)
simultaneously. Pirsig's words ....
They are discrete. They have very little to do with
one another. Although each higher level is built on a lower one
it is not an extension of that lower level.
goes for the dimensions as well, even the "built on the lower
one.....etc. is correct, not to speak of the ..
It says they are not continuous. They are discrete. They
have very little to do with one another.
I see deep harmony here.
> Pirsig himself seems to be onto this position. Confront the
> "Figure 4" he offers in the SODaV paper.
("This position" is the impossibility of direct interaction).
Fig. 4 shows two main blocks. The upper called "Subjective Static
Patterns" contains the intellectual and the social patterns. The
lower - called "Objective Static Patterns" - contains the biological
and inorganic patterns. About Dynamics' place in this diagram
Pirsig says ...."It is not only outside the blocks, it pervades them,
but goes on where the blocks leave off."
I don't find this forbidding regarding STATIC unity. Yet, if direct (in
'direct interaction') has some particular meaning beyond "influence"
I don't know.Perhaps you can tell.
Thanks for reading.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST