Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Tue, 26 Aug 1997 12:11:53 +0100
Jason,
Your comments are very interesting but where is the other side of this
conversation?
Pirsig told me to check out Bodvar's site. I have downloaded his paper,
but I have not read it yet.
Sounds like he does not want to extend the four levels. Pirsig has
already agreed that there is a level under his former bottom level.
Plus one may not deny the fractal nature of everything in the
multiverse.
This looks like fun, but it is not good for me unless I can see the
whole conversation.
I am glad that you are seeing the value layers as an ethical system.
Doug Renselle.
===============================
Jason Gaedtke wrote:
> Bodvar:
> I agree with your interpretation of my comments. Perhaps our debate
> points
> to a deeper underlying characteristic of the MoQ. Subdividing all of
> "reality" into four distinct categories or levels of evolution
> necessarily
> involves making some broad generalizations. The difficulty that I am
> having with the current system lies in the ambiguity of each of the
> levels
> -- as they currently stand. Perhaps my suggestion that further levels
> are
> necessary was a rather hasty attempt at diminishing this ambiguity.
>
> I follow your earlier comments regarding the frequent inter-level
> overlap
> in language (e.g. your examples of love, friendship, etc.) and the
> confusion and misunderstanding that this ambiguity can produce. My
> emphasis here, however, is on intra-level ambiguity.
>
> Placing all inorganic patterns of value in one class involves an
> enormous
> amount of generalization. After all, we're talking about phenomena as
>
> small as the first static, distinguishable quantum events and as large
> as
> planets, solar systems, and even entire universes (excluding all
> Dynamic
> Quality and phenomena falling into any of the three upper levels, of
> course). If we are to avoid defining an infinite number of new static
>
> levels, then there must be some definite gradation within each of the
> currently existing levels. Pirsig's philosophical offering has been a
>
> profound step in the right direction -- ultimately placing Value at
> the
> root of our new worldview. To get the most benefit from this new
> system,
> especially when viewed as an ethical tool, the next step must be taken
> in
> developing guidelines that resolve conflicts involving static patterns
> of
> the same level.
>
> Perhaps some real-world examples will help. Is a mountain or an ocean
> more
> "valuable" than an atom or a photon? (Is this relative to the
> situation?)
> What distinguishes a high-quality intellectual idea from a
> lower-quality
> one? All things being equal (i.e. same static level), is complexity a
>
> valid measure of the amount of Quality that a given pattern possesses?
>
> Ultimately, how can we more carefully apply the MoQ to conflicts in
> our
> everyday life -- aside from the obvious case of inter-level conflicts?
>
> Perhaps I'm missing some important aspects of the existing
> framework. If
> so, I hope that someone on the list can point me in the right
> direction.
>
> Thanks for your time,
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@geocities.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@geocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:26 CEST