[Mangus] In my view, the levels don't have "edges". They are orthogonal. Pirsig doesn't use that word in Lila, but an orthogonal arrangement of the levels doesn't contradict anything he says either. Higher levels are dependent on lower levels, but they are not an extension of it, they are not continuous, they are discreet.
[Case] This is an interesting analysis. If not edges, then specific points of departure. So for example where would you say that the inorganic becomes discrete from the biological? [Mangus] My interpretation of this is that they are orthogonal. Think of the inorganic level as an X-axis extending to the right. When it's complex (long) enough, the biological level can extend upwards on the Y-axis forming a 2D plane. The social level extends the 2D plane into a 3D cube and the intellectual turns it into a 4D hypercube. Such an arrangement makes the levels absolutely dependent on each other and makes each type of value very easy to spot. There's no fuzzy borders between the levels, they just go off in completely different directions. [Case] So what would this kind of graphing tell you? [Magnus] And to be honest, I frankly don't see why most people tend to treat the levels as just one long one-dimensional line (along some sort of complexity axis). Because, as you say, it just turns the levels into arbitrary abstractions. In a one-dimensional view of the levels, each *thing* can only belong to one level. But that's the reason it becomes so fuzzy and causes headaches. In a multi-dimensional view, each *thing* have a 4-tuple coordinate placing it in 1, 2, 3 or 4 levels at once. [Case] This is one source of my problem with levels in general. What makes these particular levels more special than others? There are all sorts of dimensions you could pick to plot this way. [Magnus] I don't think you're misreading me. Stability and change sounds like the static and dynamic I use. [Case] How did that work out for you in the old days? I keep getting told that DQ is undefined and we are not allowed to talk about it except in warm fuzzy terms. [Magnus] Not sure what you mean by "Complexity is about the quality and quantity of change" though. Complexity, to me, is more about the number of possible combinations in a system. [Case] Your definition is fine by me. I was getting at it with the quantity, or number of possible changes. Quality of change would be something like changes that promote more changes or changes that allow the process of change to continue or it might be applied to the kinds of processes. 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/
