Hi Krimel, I, for one, like the great majority of what you say. I'll paraphrase just a few things I particularly agree with:
The quality is filtered first through the inorganic and finally, if it gets that far, an intellect; in this sense Value is pre-intellectual. The dynamic quality leads the way into the future leaving the residue of static quality in its wake. In a Taoist/Gurdjieffian sense the dynamic quality is the way and reconciles the affirming and denying predispositions embodied in the static quality. However natural selection isn't chancy and organised systems are not deterministic. If Ham said man must look inward to define his own purpose then I agree with him and so we must attempt to divine our own futures. Regards -Peter On 21/11/2007, Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Moqers, > > > In a recent post I got sneered at as a reductionist by dmb. I think his > point is well taken and illustrates something fundamental. By rejecting > reductionism dmb hopes to hold the door open for some sort of top down > organization system. He can correct me if I am wrong here but this > definitely seems to be on tactic taken by one of his heroes Ken Wilbur. > Ham > has the same tendency with his faith in a first cause. Platt too, with his > belief in a disembodied consciousness. gav does the same kind of thing > with > his seemingly drug induced visions of oneness everywhere. Dan also has > this > kind of view of oneness that can be tapped into through meditative > discipline, Scott Roberts used to say the same kind of thing claiming that > our brains are not producers of consciousness but receivers of it. > > > > According to this kind of view we see the panoply of nature spread before > us > as a kind of evaporation of this higher power spreading out in the > material > world. This results in a view of the MoQ that has Quality as some kind of > perfection or source that breaks apart to yield the world of appearances. > > > > To any whose views I have miscast, I will happily back off but if this is > a > correct interpretation of the points of view expressed then I do indeed > see > my position and that of the MoQ as being against it. Taken at face value > the > levels show a bottom up progression from inorganic to intellect. It does > not > flow in the other direction. If seen in the proper light the value of the > MoQ is its synthesis of Taoism with Darwin. I suppose this is what makes > the > evolution chapter in Lila such a disappointment. Pirsig points at the moon > without seeing the moon. He does the same thing in his discussion of > random > access when he concluded that a metaphysics of quality would really be a > metaphysics of randomness. He sees. He points. He turns away. > > > > I think the big problem I have in these discussions is that when I look > where Pirsig points I see the connection. I recognize the pattern and I > mistakenly assume that the pattern is clear to all who look. The levels > that > Pirsig offers do follow a clear evolutionary trajectory. At each 'level' > the > power of coincidence and pragmatism interact. Change (DQ) is always moving > into the future and forms (SQ) are left in the wake. Which forms are > selected depend on the past history and the present raw materials. The > factors that influence evolution are well known and can be applied at all > 'levels' regardless of how those levels are conceived. But is entirely a > bottom up process. Higher functions emerge only from stability at the > lower > levels. Certainly there is interaction and higher levels can and do impact > lower levels, a point taken up by Ian and occasionally Arlo. But no higher > level pattern can materially disrupt the lower level patterns it depends > upon without drastic consequences. > > > > If we insist on using the dismal concept of 'betterness' then it is > 'betterness' that has been programmed into us by these very processes. We > perceive this or that as better because it enhances our potential to > reproduce. It limits the extent to which our higher level patterns are > likely to disrupt the essential lower level patterns that we perceive as > the > true, the good and the beautiful. The perception of Value is in fact > programmed into us at a genetic level. So yes, it is 'preintellectual'. > > > > I understand the reluctance to adopt this kind of view. It places too much > emphasis and chance. It results is a fairly deterministic view. It leaves > us > adrift in a sea of coincidence without a Savior, without a purpose, > without > the divine. A host of MoQers turn away from this conception in fear and > disgust. I would liken this one of Freud's ego defense mechanisms; denial. > Ham calls it nihilism and rails against existentialism with its claim that > existence precedes essence and that man must look inward to define his own > purpose. Platt rejects the concept that anything as exquisitely beautiful > and complex as this world we live in could arise from chance. I have > described these positions and others like them as wishful thinking so > often, > I am reluctant to do it again but there it is. > > > > I think the moon Pirsig is pointing at is a true metaphysics of > randomness. > When you see evolution as the study of how random process interact to > create > the stabile patterns we see all around us, the connection becomes clear > and > the Value of the MoQ obvious. But Pirsig is not alone in pointing in the > direction and perhaps others have seen the way more clearly. > > > > I have been dropping William James quotes recently to show how integral to > James' thinking Darwin was. James was a leading spokesperson for the > psychological school of Functionalism. This school was directly opposed to > the structuralist school that believed that by looking inward one could > identify structural units of mental processes. James said rather, that > consciousness, in fact any behavior, must serve an evolutionary function. > It > must contribute to the reproductive success of those who manifest it. > Neither functionalism nor structuralism have proponents today. > Structuralism, with it reliance on a rather mystical methodology much like > one frequently advocated by dmb, died long ago. But functionalism was > absorbed and retained. Today it is most clearly seen in Evolutionary > Psychology which is in many ways a direct descendant of James. > > > > The bottom line here? > > > > It's turtles all the way up! > > > > Krimel > > 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/ > 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/
