More technical difficulties it seems, so another resend...
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Mary <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi again Mark and DMB by reference in a good way, > >> >> [Mark] >> The selective force is then Quality instead of "Natural selection", >> which selects between all possible levels to present us at this time >> with the four levels. The pressures behind the survival of these >> levels is that they progress towards dynamic quality better than any >> other > configuration. >> >> [Mary] >> Again, no, so call me an asshole now. :) > > [Mark] > It would seem that if we are applying biological evolution to Quality, that > this analogy would transfer. My point was that it doesn't > > [Mary now] > Well, you'll have to write a great big post back to me to explain how you > see that the analogy does not hold 'cause I don't get where you are coming > from yet. :) > > I tend to agree with you, but probably for different reasons than your own? > Anyway, what I wanted to take up in this post is this whole concept of > "levels progressing TOWARDS Dynamic Quality". Hmmm. Nope. This is again > gilding the lily. It is not a necessary concept to the MoQ IMHO. > > What exactly does that mean? If you got into the groove of my last post, > you probably got that I don't see DQ as necessarily directed 'towards' > betterness. DMB used to talk about how SQ was where you dipped your ladle > into the DQ river and came back with some SQ to call your own. Yeah, I > agree with that analogy entirely. It is perfect IMHO. When DMB talks about > his own ideas instead of barfing endless quotations from somebody else, I > think we all benefit here on the Discuss. > > Anyway, it seems to me that the drive for 'betterness' is wholly a function > of SQ and not DQ. The preponderance of SQ that has latched before is the > determining factor to whether you, me, a molecule, a social level construct, > or an intellectual level idea sees the next new DQ thing as better or > whether it is rejected and not latched into SQ. Pirsig could have helped > clarify this concept if he had spent a little more time talking about all > the stuff that didn't make it as SQ for very long - all the stuff that ended > up on the SQ cutting room floor - because, all that stuff is just as much DQ > as the stuff that resonated with all the SQ that was already in place. > > Surely, I don't have to spell this out, but on the off chance that I do, > let's just say that what is good is only so because of what was accepted as > good before. The preponderance of previous good sets up the conditions for > what we'll accept as good now. I harp on this point because I happen to > think the MoQ has applicability in other Universes. I like it so much > precisely because it does not insist on anthropocentricity as a precept. > For instance, I think the whole SQ mechanism for 'good' would work equally > well in some alternate universe that did not have initial static latches of > time, space, mass, or energy. > > But then, I like stuff like that, > Mary 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/md/archives.html
