Hi J-A, As always I enjoy your post. Since we are meant to keep this subject within MoQ, I will do so and adress those MoQ points that you make. And thus participate in a discussion of Pirsig's MoQ.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected] > wrote: > .uk.net> > To: [email protected] > X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) > > All > > The word politic was used already by Platon, "Polis-ethics". > > Pragmatism is to find out what works, to find out what is useful. > > Feedback is crucial for useful process maintenance. > > Protons are processes in a very stable state as they have the longest > duration that we know about, 10^32 years or like. What kind of feedback to > balance the process of a proton is not yet fully explored but we could > already say that it must have an extremely good accuracy for that duration. > The interaction between DQ/SQ is close to perfect. > Mark: I assume what you are describing by way of protons is the energy of activation for the transformation of protons; protons are a creation of physics, so I use the concepts from physical chemistry. This has been explored using equations and even the Schrödinger equation, which present a balance of waveforms through a derivative of energy. I am not quite sure how you equate this to DQ/SQ. If I can be so bold, DQ/SQ represents a system in homeostasis. This is this is distinct from the stable state of protons. If we use DQ and SQ as variables, a system of homeostasis would be described where the divisional form of this equation always equals 1. Therefore, as DQ increases so must SQ. This sounds reasonable to me. > > Biological processes uses different chemical substances to transmit > feedback to the right place so the right 'decisions" are taken to be able > to survive.Species with the fittest feedback systems survive in the > competion for space and energy. Billions of years of experiencing the > feedback signals has given us a rich and beautiful nature. > Mark: Here you are using "fittest" and "survival" to mean the same thing. Something is defined as fittest if it survived. We cannot say that because of fitness, we get survival. This would be akin to saying that because of survival we get survival. Surely you can appreciate this. What gives us this beautiful biological nature is not the feedback systems, but rather the interplay between the creative and the selective. In MoQ terms this would be the interplay between DQ and SQ. This would not be a form of homeostasis as you present with your proton example, but rather a dynamic interface. Where the Yin and the Yang are in constant motion. The interface of which describes reality. Remember that Zen came out of Taoism. MoQ leads to the same place as Zen does, according to Pirsig. > > Social process uses the lower levels for their own purpose. Chemical > reactions and biological process are used to maintain the social structure. > Emotional and physical signal values are processed by the controlling > centers to make decisions. The social processe that takes the best > decisons, reads the circumstances in the best way, will win in the > competition between different social structures.The art of hunting, > agriculture, war and business is based on that. > I would look at it the the other way around. The lower levels are expressed as social processes. That is, the social processes are created by these lower levels. I do not think it is pragmatic to say that a social process came into existence which then used the lower processes. It is more pragmatic to claim that there is the result of social processes from the lower levels. In this way there is no "usage" by the social level of the lower levels. However there may be some feedback, such as abortion and such when it is done for societal reasons as in China. As analogy, we can say that individuals create a society. What you are suggesting is that such society "uses" the individual. While this is one way to look at it, it is full of ideology in terms of putting the society before the individual. This is of course impossible since the society is created by the individual. To twist this then around is a fabrication which is not supported pragmatically. Quality cannot control us, because we are one of its creators. We cannot separate ourselves from Quality, much as we try to by creating an idol out of MoQ. MoQ leads to Quality, it does not use it. > > Intellectual patterns are tested, evalued and ordered, false and useless > patterns are forgotten while true and useful concepts are saved. > Mark: Here you are invoking an entity who is selecting for the most useful pattern. That some concepts are seen as true is the result of the intellectual level which guides our intellect. Since we are operating within such a level, we cannot describe it except by examples (see Wittgensteins second half of his philosophy). We cannot fathom the consciousness of the intellectual level. > > In the political dicussion of today, high attention are done on numbers > and facts. The wealth of a nation is measured in numbers, preferably taxes > and interest rates. How it is to live a life in a state as human being, the > 'quality' aspect is harder to measure and discuss. The 'good life' is > mostly regarded as an inferior variable compared to tax income, consumed > calories and the price of gasoline. > Yes, I agree, and this is indeed a shame. Everything seems to be converted into money. Money is transactional and could well be an SQ of time as you have suggested. However, the notion of time is lost and only money remains. Again I believe this is your position. What MoQ seeks to do is teach how to get away from this bind. That is why it teaches Quality which cannot be encompassed through money. > > There is another connection between MOQ and politics too. > > MRB and Mark had some opinion about the size of the government. > > We must first consider the MOQ based insight that a country is NOT a > company. A country is not a big farm either, enterpreneural strategies are > not applicable to a country, because: > > The economics of an enterprise is plan-economics, it is controlled and > dictated from above, just like what they try in the communist states. > Poeple are hired and fired at will. It will work in a enterprise but not in > a free country. That is the mistake from the communist policies so forget > that if you are on the liberal side. > Yes, I fully agree, a country is not a company or a big farm, it is a collection of individuals. It is for this reason that I do not believe that the president should be a CEO. Currently the US government is doing just that. It has taken the role of hiring and firing people rather than leaving this at the individual level. In terms of Quality, we have SQ dominating any form of DQ. I would equate SQ with regulations, and DQ with creativity. I believe that Pirsig implies the same thing in his metaphysics. > > A country is a Social area, not a biological species, where every citizen > who has the RIGHT to stay in the country has the right to be alive. The > state has NO right to hinder the biological and social life of any member, > (malicious murderers behaviour can be discussed of course). The state is > obliged to serve and protect every citizen. OK? Intellectual freedom is > obvious. > Yes, I fully agree with this. This state is meant to serve, not to dominate. Protection from an outside force is a main purpose of a State. The State should not determine what is taught in schools since this is at odds with intellectual freedom. Such teachings should be left to the local level where the individual has more intellectual input. > > The members in turn are obliged to pay their share of their wealth to stay > in the state. Numbers of examples there. I can't say how much you have to > pay to stay in a social structure, but I can tell that it must be worth it. > How do you know if it is worth to live in a country? Well, France has just > risen their taxes for rich people and some of them are preparing to leave > just because they rather keep their millions than breath the french air. > Its just a feeling of comfortablity with the circumstances, high life > quality...? > You may be creating a false dichotomy between the State and the individual here. The state is made up of individuals. We cannot say that Quality requires our contributions, since we are composed of Quality. If we DO think that Quality has this need, we create Quality into some kind of God, or government. It is when we create a separate entity such as the state, it becomes that metaphorical company you bring into the conversation at the beginning When we say that we get support from the State, all we are saying is that we get support from other individuals. The State is used for distribution, but is not an entity that has power separate from the individual. The state is a social level apparition. It should never be controlled by the intellect of a few. It should always be By the People, For the People. If not, we tend towards an autocracy or monarchy. The US has not been ruled by a monarchy, once it was established as a sovereign country , so the individual here is not used to dictates from a centralized government, as may be the case in Europe. I think this is a good thing. In terms of "fairness", I would reply: "What is fair, and what is not fair? Need anyone tell us these things?" It is important to apply MoQ to fairness. What are we taught by MoQ There is no binding dogma that we need to ascribe to (for doing so is degenerate). We start with Quality and then create what comes next. If the levels work for one in terms of metaphysically describing Quality, then fine. However, the levels are not essential for being aware of Quality. Pirsig's MoQ is one example of a metaphysics used to describe Quality. There have been many. What we discuss here is why Pirsig's MoQ is a good description of Quality, and how it can be improved without forgetting first principles. Sometimes others seem to forget that we are discussing Pirsig's metaphysics in terms of its applications to describing Quality. We may all see Quality in different ways, but there are certain basic principles that are shared. A metaphysics of Quality is about nothing other than Quality. I would like to see more discussion on how our ideas can be related to Quality itself. Otherwise we just get caught up in the details of the metaphysics. > > So I think the choice between Obama and Romney is easy for everyone: Is it > worth it, not only in fiscal numbers but also regarding life quality? I am > not american so I have no opinion. > Yes, I fully agree with you here. It is all about life's Quality, a large portion of which is freedom. In this case it would be freedom from a dogmatic State. Pirsig has said as much, when he brings in his interpretation of Quality. The quality of life in the US is rapidly diminishing into a new normal. We can parallel this with the size of the State. This is simply being pragmatic and drawing connections. The US grew rapidly in life's Quality for a reason. I see no reason to change that reason. We cannot diminish Quality by building an artificial metaphysics around it. This would be like building a State around freedom. The two do not mix. From Quality comes a metaphysics to describe it, we must never forget what MoQ is for. Quality begins at home, not in some office somewhere. It lies at the very roots of our actions. There is no entity that can tell us what is good, and what is bad. At least that is what MoQ teaches. All the best, Jan, and thank you for your thoughtful contribution. I have kept my response within Horse's guidelines since such response uses the principles of MoQ in a pragmatic way, and therefore lends to more discussion about practical applications of MoQ. Mark > > > > 20 okt 2012 kl. 23.19 skrev Horse: > > > Guys, can we please keep away from the party political rhetoric. > > I know some of the folk on this list have an election coming up soon so > it's probably on most of your minds at present. > > However, unless it's specifically relevant to Pirsig's MoQ then keep it > offlist. > > > > Cheers > > > > Horse > > > > > > On 20/10/2012 19:53, Michael R. Brown wrote: > >> On 10/20/2012 11:39 AM, david buchanan wrote: > >> > >> > pragmatists like James "wanted us to give up 'ideologies'.” > Pragmatism, he said, is “the attitude of looking away from first things, > principles, ‘categories,’ supposed necessities; and of looking towards last > things, fruits, consequences, facts.” > >> > >> Which is why you say this: > >> > >> > the most hackneyed and cliched slogans of the GOP. > >> > >> I.e., mere categories! > >> > >> > Similarly, Obama's Pragmatic attitude > >> > >> Which leads him to ignore that his system isn't working, doesn't work, > never works, can't work. And spout endless errors. And verbal gyrations. > (Benghazi, anyone?) > >> > >> > no engagement with the ideas > >> > >> The ideas in the article have been engaged with ad naus inf. The > article is mealy-mouthed garbage. The Constitution is a living document > because it offers what government needs: firm, fixed limits. Pirsig's Cycle > wasn't made of diaphanous goo that wandered all over the road and five > miles past it. It had a definite form and presumably still exists. That's > what made it all possible. Were Pirsig and his son not separate people, > there could have been no realization or connection at the end. Don't get > Zen sickness by reducing everything to oneness. > >> > >> > This is what trolls do. They don't add to any conversation or debate > or dialogue. They just shit on it and walk away. > >> > >> Thank you for a meaningful contribution that doesn't in any way > resemble standard liberal/dem/leftist boilerplate trollery. : ) > >> > >> I guess I'm a real MOQ'er now! > >> > >> > >> MRB > >> 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 > >> > > > > -- > > > > "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production > deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." > > — Frank Zappa > > > > 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 > > 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 > 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
