Hi, Jaap,
Very good post, even if we do disagree on most points. I'll try to
comment them.
Jaap Karssenberg wrote :
>
> 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...
>
> Denis 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).
> >>
>
> (Denis)
> >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.
>
I'm not exactly "in conflict" with the flow idea. My point is that the
evolution of a level doesn't have to have its origin in the higher ones.
A biological mutation isn't necessarily the result of a social level
event. In fact I'm more against the "flow down", than the "flow up". The
higher level are dependent upon the lower ones, but the reverse isn't
true. Since the levels must preserve themselves, they are perfectly
capable of finding answers (seen as DQ) at their own level. Biology made
immense steps before ressorting to social organization.
But then, then, I must admit that Jaap makes a good point of saying that
a higher level influences the lower one (I can't disagree here, I've
said it too before). I just *think* the higher levels have a more
difficult time exerting their influence than the lower ones : it's so
hard to climb up the morality ladder, and so easy to fall. SQ has the
force of certainty, while DQ is always fighting to survive.
> 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.
> >
Bo, since it is SOM intellectual values that are leading the
Netherlands, one might argue that it's "betterness" isn't really on firm
ground here. The Australian aboriginals don't seem so low to me. Perhaps
they didn't invent satellites, but neither have they abused their land
as we occidentals have. And then, their "magic" might still have a few
things to tell us. Don't trash them too fast because you deem them
"social creatures".
> >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.
>
Of course you're a believer. Aren't we all ? Pirsig made a point of
saying it's ALL based on beliefs, on ghosts. The only difference isn't
the "real" ghosts and the "false" ghosts, it's a difference in Quality.
You choose to believe in MOQ rather than SOM because you LIKED it
better. There is no need to argue the point further except with SOMists
who will tell you it's "only" what you like.
> 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:
THE Dennis !!! I'm vexed ! (and it's Denis, not Dennis) ;^)
> >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.
Not so fast, Speedy Gonzales. RMP said that when a lower level trashes a
higher one for its preservation it's bad, not that it's *always* bad
when a lower level prevails. If I take the intellectual decision not to
eat but can't hold to it because my body overrides my will, it isn't
necessarily a bad thing. The flip side of a higher level dominance is
that it should still preserve the lower ones.
And I didn't say everything was deterministic (in fact I said the
opposite. From our limited point of view, that is), but that all higher
level events had a counterpart in the lower ones (which seems common
sense to me).
And I don't get your last sentence, sorry.
> 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).
>
I'd rather say that when a DQ event at a higher levels makes it past the
lower levels SPoV and reaches its static latch, it's evolution. When
it's the opposite (low-level DQ reaching static latch), it might be good
either, but only if it doesn't trash higher levels SPoV. Higher level DQ
is allowed to trash lower SPoVs, but the lower level DQ isn't allowed to
do the same to higher SPoVs. That's degeneration.
> 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 the 60s many people felt that free sex, drugs and music was DQ. Books
were written on it. Songs were sung about it. We rational creatures then
thought that the bio level was best. The notion of the "Good Savage" was
a philophical idea that had a lot of following in these days. And why
see SQ as always bad ? Things, unfortunately, aren't always as
clear-cut.
>
> 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.
>
SQ flowing upward is OK by me, since SQ always influences the level
upside it. Biology works according to the rules of chemistry, social
structures are conditioned by biological needs, and the intellect
depends upon certain social values. So SQ flowing upward in a game of
influence is OK by me.
Except when you say it's bad.
SQ, after all, is one half of the "Good" equation. Quality and Good are
the same,
but we disagree about it because there is the static good and the
dynamic good, SQ and DQ. SQ is what you know is good. DQ comes as a
surprise. SQ seems to have become lately everybody's whipping boy, but
SQ IS OLD DQ, in case you don't remember. It's what is holding the world
together. DQ is a name for the force of change, of evolution, but
continued existence and order is SQ.
> 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.
>
Causation is the notion that no event is without a primary force behind
it, that every phenomenon has an origin. RMP says that this is deduced
from
experience, but is not experience itself. It comes after. He chooses to
say that things "prefer" to do this or that. This way MOQ escapes
mechanistic structures and puts values at the forefront. To this we've
added that our patterns of likes and dislikes are governed to a certain
extent by SQ. I've also added that those patterns are so complex that as
human beings this is equivalent to being non-deterministic (which means
unpredictable, not totally anarchic). We move according to strange
attractors, that might (one day) be calculated, but like Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle, not totally defined.
In fact, causation (as the influence of SPoV) is less and less rigid as
we go up the levels. That's probably why SOM got stuck at the second
level. It didn't have the tools to explore the upper ones.
How does MOQ fare under this regard ? Since it doesn't look for a
"primary cause" but more for a "pattern of preference", the causation
schtick is not much of a problem. To this, we might oppose that we're
losing some precision in our models, but I don't think that's very
relevent so far. It only means that we'll lose some predictability,
which is good since we've agreed the levels get less and less
mechanistic as they pile up. We'll have to work on "trends" rather than
"processes", but if we're going to explore the social and intellectual
levels, it doesn't look like an obstacle to me. What we ARE getting rid
of is the stupid intellectual prejudice of the mechanistic SOMists
against those fields. Good riddance, I say.
About the role of SQ and DQ in this process, my analysis is that when a
observed phenomenon follows a recognized pattern of preference, it can
be recognized as SQ at work (for good or bad). If it doesn't, a DQ event
has occurred, not only in the phenomenon, but also for us. We are part
of the experiment, and when something unexpected appears, if it is
classified as DQ, it becomes difficult to dissmiss it as "a fault in the
experiment". When we say "DQ", we recognize that our intellectual
patterns have been challenged, and we look for a way to integrate the
new data, to make it reach its static latch. This way, instead of
protecting an old calcified structure, we make it dynamic and evolving.
Far better, no ?
You'll note that I never say that DQ 'causes' this or that, because DQ
doesn't 'cause' anything. It is an event "that comes as a surprise".
When something doesn't react in a "causation way", when chaos and
non-determinism step in, then we have DQ. It is important to remember
that when talking about the causation problem : DQ is its antithesis.
> To answer the randomness, is it possible to say that SQ orriginates from
> chaos?
>
DQ originates from chaos.
> I hope everyone is satisfied this way,
Well, I'm still not satisfied, but this post'll clear things up.
Seeya
Denis
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:37 BST