Tor Langballe wrote :
>
> Hello All,
[...]
> But this has got me going on what I think is essential to put more
> stress on in our levels-discussions: Each higher level is implemented
> in the system of the lower level(s): It is completely dependant on
> it. We talk about the higher level "dominating" the lower, trying to
> "restrain" it, But think also that a new level is "created" when
> trying to solve a goal in a given level but needing to go beyond the
> value system of that level to try to achieve a higher quality result?
>
> The social level may seem capable of having lots of values that the
> biological level dislikes, but at the end of the day it's only
> catering to that levels needs in a complex way. Women binding(?)
> their feet in historic China may seem like a social value pattern
> that only opposes the biological level (that sees it a low quality
> i.e pain, inability to walk). But in reality it was an abstract
> forward-looking value pattern created to satisfy other biological
> needs (getting married -> having offspring = high bio quality)
>
High Quality insight, this. The higher levels often have the function of
solving a "Gordian knot" of the lower level. The higher level is
therefore akin to a roundabout way of thinking that solves the problem.
You're ugly but want a good man or woman ? use social quality to get
him/her anyway... (gosh, i've got to try this !) ;o)
Of course, you can also get him/her drunk, but it doesn't last as
much... :(
> Each level can have so many "abstract values on top of each other"
> that the top values define their own value system independent on the
> lower (main) level, but their resting on other abstractions that
> actually "touch" the lower level and who's only goal is to help it
> out.
>
Yes, but like any new technology, the higher level answer also creates
its own set of problems that needs solving in their turn, thus
increasing the complexity of the new level. And so on, until the
intellectual level is achieved (not necessarily the end of the problem,
as last month discussion has shown).
I think the functions of the new level are twofold : help the lower
level, and preserve itself (the necessary static latch).
> SO the less hard-core nature-nurture discussions by SOM folks that
> say "both" nature and nurture govern behavior are positioning
> themselves within these layers of abstraction within the social level.
>
> In a sense these layers of abstract values go all the way up through
> our main levels, what Pirsig did was isolate where to separate them
> that would be useful and pinpoint where the level above makes a shift
> in what it values and becomes unintelligible to the layer below.
>
> As we talked about last month at a given level, behavior governed by
> values at a higher level is irrational to the lower level, and can be
> seen seen as "being under the influence of DQ". This ties in with's
> Jaaps recent:
>
> >As I wrote I see more in a DQ flowing downward through the levels
> >creating a vertical chain of events but working only creative ;) at the
> >highest (active) level.
>
> Which I don't disagree with either, it doesn't exclude my quantum
> spark bit in my mind though, I'll get back to that.
>
> But I'm all of a sudden kind of puzzled by my own statement above
> that "behavior governed by values at a higher level is irrational and
> can be seen seen as "being under the influence of DQ" ... Have we
> actually really touched this before? Can being influenced by a higher
> level and being influenced by DQ actually be distinguished? A static
> value at a higher level can seem to me to create a quality event at a
> lower level that changes it's static values.
Of the twofold functions of a higher level, I believe only the first can
be seen (rightly) at lower level as 'DQ'; the preserving bit is probably
not as popular in a DQ sense, hence the conflict between levels.
> Of course this static pattern at the higher level was created by DQ
> originally, thereby the flow.
> This brings on the next question: Can a level actually experience DQ
> on it's own and change it's own SQ patterns? Perhaps not, that change
> must come from either above (Jaap and me now) or below (my
> quantum-spark idea).
>
I disagree here. The lower levels don't stop evolving because a new
level is born, social structures have changed immensely since the birth
of intellect, and biological evolution only seems stopped from our
limited perspective. Biologists often make the point that the human body
hasn't yet reach the end of its evolution toward the bipedal form.
Further changes are to be expected in the next milleniums (if we make it
this far, that is).
> So now I've got DQ rippling up and down the levels, but the
> source-spark has to be at the inorganic level, I can't get by this
> source spark bit without all layers becoming deterministic because
> they are implemented by the layers below...
I mainly agrees here that some level of determinism (I prefer influences
of lower static patterns) always makes it to the top. A series of
conferences of the brain I've recently listen too (someone recorded them
for me) have pointed out that a mental event always has a counterpart in
the electrical activity of the brain. But a friend of me also said that
any system made of deterministic elements, if it is of sufficient
complexity (and that's something the world sure is) for all purposes
functions as a non-deterministic one. Only from God's point of view can
this system be said deterministic, which is probably why dharma is such
a difficult thing to apprehend. For us human beings, a non-deterministic
model is the best approximation of such complex deterministic systems.
Taking the axiom that "if you can't distinguish two things from one
another, then for all purposes they are the same", then we must
logically conclude that for us, the mental (intellectual) world is
non-deterministic.
> This may sound more harsh than I intend, it boils down to the fact
> that you can't implement randomness in a deterministic system; You
> need a seed that is random. In computers a single such seed can
> create infinite new pseudo-random numbers though.
And even then it is difficult to do. Having read some hacker's
literature (try www.phrack.com), I have an idea that a *real* good
number generator is harder to hack than finding a Pirsigian who loves
Aristotle... ;) One solution I found on this site was to use a blank
radio channel static noise !!! (of course, this might be a lot of
bulls..t to laugh at lamers like me, but you get the idea).
> Such a
> seed-quantum-spark can flow up to different levels and create all
> sorts of DQ events going down, or further up or whatever. Until a new
> seed is sent up though, the system is deterministic.
>
See above.
> OK, I'm bailing out before I switch from talking the "machine code of
> intellect" (language) to using real machine code!
>
Hehe...
> -tor
>
Be God
Denis
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:37 BST