Hello everyone,
First of all I want to apologize for this is going to be a long mail but
remember the way DQ flows is crucial in the causation problem. It took me
some time to think over all arguments I found today and regretably I wasn't
able jet to reach the SOLAQI-essay but I try it again later. Oke let's
start...
Dennis wrote:
(Tor)
>> 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).
>>
(Dennis)
>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).
Maybe I'm overlooking someting but I don't see how the flow idea -either
from above or below- is in conflict whit the further evolution of lower
levels. And then again, social structures have changed immensly and are
still changing but when a critical quantity of people in a society has
reached the intellectual level the society will change according to
intellectual ideas. And human evolution is as all biological evolution
influenced by partner choice, but since the social level is active this will
influence the partner choise and so on.
In reaction to my example Bo wrote:
>Well, it sounds sound, but I have my objections to it. Even if the
>biological species have grown more complex, the higher organisms
>aren't more alive than the lower. What we see as higher life forms
>is social value starting to influence biology; living in colonies,
>sharing food, rearing the young..etc have facilitated more refined
>biological patterns. The same goes for society: the Netherlands
>isn't more "social" than an aboriginal tribe, its betterness is only
>because it is enormously influenced by intellectual value.
>
>Consequently, the MOQ's betterness is -as I see it - because it is
>a representative for some new higher value...
Your absolutely right that's why I wrote that SOM and MOQ are equal and that
MOQ is believed to be better by MOQ-believers. Since a level can not "see" a
higher level it's not possible for the intellectual level to say whether MOQ
or SOM is a representative for a higher level -the edge between evolution
and degeneration is small- and that's why I used "believer". Of course I say
MOQ is higher in evolution but after all I'm a believer.
I have also a reaction to your adrenaline example but it follows later on.
Tor wrote:
>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 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).
>
>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...
And the Dennis wrote:
>I mainly agrees here that some level of determinism (I prefer influences
>of lower static patterns) always makes it to the top.
Didn't Pirsig say something like when a lower level is used by a higher
level that's good, when a higher level is used by a lower level then that's
bad. I believe he even used the word devoured ar something like that. When
you conclude everything is determenistic from to anorganic level upward does
that file good? Of course not, at least I would think it to be terrible
(that's why in the early days religion was so shocked by the
evolution-theory and other sience). And then Bo's example, trying to turn
that inside out I came across the hot-stove-example. In the case of the hot
stove it is impossible for an MOQ-believer to deny that there is something
going upward through the levels. But again the reason you (biological) jump
from the hot stove is something bad, at least noone can say burning is good.
Following this line I come up whit the following answer:
Quality flows up and down (both ;-)) But flowing downward it's DQ, will it
stimulate evolution and is it considered good, when it flows upward it's SQ
(or influences of lower static patterns), will it bring degeneration and is
it considered bad (or less-good).
Folowing this track I come whit a second statement: Not only "sees" a
certain level a higher level as DQ it also "sees" a lower level as SQ.
In this light you have an certain (active) level caught between SQ and DQ.
When you look at a cross-section of several levels you see DQ flowing
downward and SQ flowing upward. And that seems allright. When a new level is
created, a new static latch is made the SQ comes closer to DQ.
Back to causation. I think a certain event is created by SQ and DQ, or by
the possibilities of a certain static pattern and an undefinable dynamic
force. Since this force comes from a higher level -if there is a higher
level- it is impossible for the intellect to say anything more about this
"force"; about SQ instead it is possible to find out anything.
To answer the randomness, is it possible to say that SQ orriginates from
chaos?
I hope everyone is satisfied this way,
Greetings,
Jaap
What's good, Pheadrus,
and what's not good,
do we need anyone to tell us these things?
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:37 BST