Krimel,
You put forth a well oriented argument, one that
has me pondering about the need for levels, but as you
will see below I do have one issue, the moral issue,
which seems to stir a value with these levels still.
I don't know enough about Kant, but I'm familiar
with what aprior knowledge is, at least, enough to
have some inclining as to what it means, but not
enough to take the next step and answer, could the
knowing of inorganic, organic, social, and
intellectual (as well as dynamic quality) be aprior
knowledge? Pirsig does say quality is known when
quality is seen. Now maybe this recognition doesn't
have to be within the human mind only, but this
recognition could be all at once in the mind and 'out
there' (a kind of recognition that is the same as when
Buddha was enlightened all the universe was
enlightened at the same moment). Yet still, does the
'know quality when seen' mean a certain aprior
knowledge is occurring? The levels are quality,
quality in levels, but still quality. If so, then
does history argue over the 'know quality when seen'
argument due to these levels were innovations of
Pirsig. Sure quality can be 'known when seen', but
these levels could be another cultural outcome where
Pirsig's experience (his education background, etc...)
influence the level outcome.
What do you think Krimel? I'm open to discussion
on this due to I don't see the levels as a stomping
ground and a battlefield, such as what makes the
intellectual distinct from social, etc... Though I've
been explicit that if one desires to go such a route
and find distinction, then that's their choice, a
choice that may be fruitful, but still unending
difficult and from personal experience the question of
it's worth began to creep into my mind.
There is one distinction that I see the levels
being very upfront and clear in showing. The levels
show morals. Zen is very moral, but as it has been
perceived as a quietism practice where thoughts are
supposed to disappear even by some practitioners,
thus, Huineng (the sixth patriarch) found the
improvisational need of his day was to dispel this
falsehood and point out that Zen practitioners do
think. So, just as this was an argument a Zen
practitioner had to give in his commentaries (the
Diamond Sutra, etc...), so did Zen practitioners find
a need to demonstrate and comment upon the skillful
moral compass of Zen. Are the levels a way for the
moq to survive any false attempts that may try to say
the moq is immoral? Thus, one reason I see for the
level system as valuable. What do you think?
> [David M]
> Not sure what your problem is with levels.
> They have an evolutionary role to play at least.
>
> So that the intellectual-individual emerges from
> the social level, the social level from the
> biological and the biological from the inorganic
> through increasing organisation.
>
> I would suggest that each big level is made up of
> many
> smaller ones. EG the inorganic has photons,
> particles,
> atoms, molecules at least. Many forms of level with
> different
> levels of complexity, same for societies and for
> individuated
> people and their ideas.
>
> [Krimel]
> Ok, look at it from an evolutionary point of view
> for a second. After all
> Evolution is a TOE if ever there is going to be one.
> Evolution focuses on
> relationships that change over time. A relationship
> is a pattern of
> interaction, of sameness and/or difference between
> discrete things over
> time.
>
> If a pattern is consistent and invariant over time
> that is, if it has static
> quality, it is predictable. It is a reduction in
> uncertainty. As patterns
> pile up, uncertainty (DQ) has to seek ever more
> clever places to hide. In
> the depths of outer space there are fixed patterns
> of stars emitting
> particles that stream outward in more or less
> straight lines. Fixed, mostly
> invariant patterns with very little interaction and
> hardly any new patterns
> forming.
>
> If you set the controls for the heart of the sun,
> you find immense
> concentrations of particles and energies. Even
> patterns like "atom" and
> "molecule" can not form and static patterns are
> limited to plasma storms and
> streams and shifts in color.
>
> In stars it is tooooo Dynamic and space it is
> toooooo Static, in a
> Goldilocks Zone like Earth it is just right for
> pattern formation. Not only
> patterns, but patterns of patterns of patterns of
> interaction. We exist in a
> space, in time, where static patterns can be
> sustained, interact and even
> replicate themselves. It is certainly possible to
> speak of layers of
> patterns in terms of relative consistency or
> stability over time. The
> inorganic layer has the lowest rate of change. But
> properties of the
> inorganic layer create sufficient static quality for
> inorganic interaction
> to assume a new character. Call it chemistry.
> Sustained relationships that
> can interact in new patterns. Atoms interacting and
> combining and
> interacting in combination.
>
> Stabile inorganic patterns allow for patterns of
> interaction at higher
> levels of complexity. The properties of carbon for
> example at this place and
> this time, allow multiple configurations and
> multiple kinds of interactions.
> Incredible numbers and incredible possibilities over
> incredible spans of
> time. Call it biology. And so it goes.
>
> Skipping lots of gruesome details... For life forms,
> stability over time is
> enhanced by pattern recognition. Single celled
> organisms can be attracted or
> repelled from patterns of light and darkness or
> patterns of chemistry in
> their environments. These are in effect streams of
> probability. For plants
> the sidereal and annual patterns are key. For
> animals these are compounded
> to the point that complex pattern recognition is
> vital. At lower levels of
> the animal kingdom purely sensory patterns will do
> and inborn systems of
> pattern recognition will suffice.
>
> Higher order animals have increased brain size in
> relation to body mass.
> This increase in volume translates into the ability
> to recognize
> increasingly complex patterns of stasis and flux.
> Most critical for animals
> approaching human levels of complexity is the
> ability to transcend time
> through memory. It allows them to retain and access
> more and more patterns.
> It lets them see not only patterns in space but
> patterns in time and to
> construct from memories scenarios of possible
> futures.
>
> As an aside I rather like Kant's notion of apriori
> knowledge. That is
> categories of thought that format our experience.
> Patterns that are
> hardwired into our biology. These are patterns that
> are shaped from biology
> by evolution, conferring as they do selective
> advantage on those who possess
> them. I would note that Kant's main apriori
> categories were space, time and
> cause and effect. Space and time work for me at
> least if you conceive of
> them as spacetime; but cause and effect can better
> be thought of as pattern
> recognition or estimation of probability or the
> capacity to reduce
> uncertainty.
>
> Layers of levels of stability tend to shift in and
> out of focus depending on
> ones point of view. To adopt a fixed pattern of
> "leveled" relationships
> strikes me as adopting a relatively fixed point of
> view. I would further
> suggest the fixity of point of view is what the
> Hindu's call Maya.
>
> That is the long answer to my problem with THE
> levels.
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
