Mark, Sam, Rick and all MFers: dmb says: The idea of levels in Pirsig's thinking goes back to ZAMM, at least.
Mark had asked: Is there textual support for this? dmb replies: Yes, I think there is "textual support." I don't think that I'm trying to intergrate the idea of levels into the MOQ because they are already there. Mark 18-5-04: Hello dmb, you answer the topic question, "What is a level" by telling us, "there are levels in the MOQ." This is anodyne. dmb: I suspect its part of the "oldest idea known to man". Mark 18-5-04: Quality is the oldest idea known to man. You suspect levels are part of the oldest idea known to man. Therefore, you suspect levels are part of Quality. I feel you may be confusing 'level' with 'differentiation' here dmb? I feel you are also confusing 'value differentiation' with 'rational differentiation'. Value differentiation's are found in all Human cultures, Rational differentiation's are not. 'Level' and 'Hierarchy' are Rational differentiation's and therefore cannot be part of the oldest idea known to man, just as evolutionary theory and Quantum physics are not part of the oldest idea known to man. (We may still wish to argue that evolution and Quantum physics were at work in early Human history though.) Value differentiation's predate rationality: All theory is born from intuition of the undivided. This is why i asked if there were textual support for, "The idea of levels in Pirsig's thinking goes back to ZAMM, at least" because the Way or Tao eliminates differentiation. That is to say, enlightenment is a view point or 'highest level' (mountain simile) from which it is understood all differentiation's are imposed. I responded: Mark 12-5-04: Quality is the oldest idea known to man. Levels are intellectual postulations and as such may be termed intellectual Quality. Of course, intellectual Quality is part of evolution theory. Mark 12-5-04: The MOQ unites the theory of evolution with Quality. ZMM is concerned with Quality. Lila is concerned with the MOQ. Mark 18-5-04: dmb, you totally pass over evidence which explains the difference between: 1. The Way (tat tvam asi) and the MoQ's account of the Way (coherence). 2. Hierarchy as rational art. tat tvam asi is coherence in the MOQ. tat tvam asi is value quietness in ZMM. Coherence links the MOQ with ZMM in this way. I continued: Mark 12-5-04: This is the Way - the Tao. Remember the butcher's knife in The edge of Chaos? The Tao is equated with Quality in ZMM. Lila unites Quality with evolution theory. Mark 12-5-04: The highest level is the viewpoint of the Buddha - the Dynamic view point - enlightenment. Here there are no differentiation's, because it is recognised that all (value) differentiation's are imposed. Evolution theory is a product of differentiated thought. The MOQ unites differentiated thought with Dynamic Quality. Mark 18-5-04: dmb, you choose to ignore all this and pass immediately on to Sam's contribution. What i have said is relevant, because it is important to show that you are not only reading the MOQ back into ZMM, but you are also mistaken in assuming that levels are part of the Tao or Quality. I continued: Mark 12-5-04: I feel your suspicions are perhaps the result of a misguided interpretation of the 'looking backwards' project. All hierarchies are impositions. But, some hierarchies are better than others. And what determines which are better? Quality. Hierarchies are Intellectual Quality. Mark 12-5-04: You are talking about Quality, not differentiated reality. dmb: I'm just pointing out that Pirsig didn't do anything very novel or invent them out of thin air. And so I honestly don't see why the idea "would be a mistake". Mark 18-5-04: dmb, If we understand levels and hierarchy to be value differentiation's, then it is anodyne of anyone to suggest that a particular individual invented differentiation's. All differentiation is value - they are there. But the character of how differentiation's are made changes with evolution. Your example of value quietness is applicable to the MOQ and ZMM because value quietness is coherence - harmony - excellence. Coherence unites all differentiation's whether they be rational, emotional, or Inorganic in harmony. As Human experience, experience of coherence precedes rational thought, and is found in rational thought today. The Way. The source of all Quality differentiation's. So, if you were to suggest that coherence is part of the oldest idea known to man, i would agree with you, because experience of coherence may be encouraged through starvation techniques, hallucinogens, self induced ecstatic states, etc. These experiences, described in static narratives, are the source of soul theories. dmb: The point was simply to show a similarity between ideas, a continuity in Pirsig's thinking with respect to levels, Mark 18-5-04: In ZMM this is tat tvam asi. The aim is to realise here that what you perceive and what you are the same: Pirsig: "This inner peace of mind occurs on three levels of understanding. Physical quietness seems the easiest to achieve, although there are levels and levels of this too, as attested by the ability of Hindu mystics to live buried alive for many days. Mental quietness, in which one has no wandering thoughts at all, seems more difficult, but can be achieved. But value quietness, in which one has no wandering desires at all but simply performs the acts of his life without desire, that seems the hardest." dmb: but I also happen to know from Wilber and others, that the same basic idea is found in virtually every thought system throughout the world, except our own. Mark 18-5-04: dmb, 'systems' are logically structured patterns of thought, i.e. rational. Any structures found in culture before the advent of the rational are analogues of Quality and likely to be social in nature; parents, tribal leaders, Anthropomorphised Gods, or rhetorical descriptions of tat tvam asi - unity, mystic, in other words, of the coherent. High coherence or value quietness is found everywhere, even in our own experience. This is the true nature of all Gods and spiritual realms. There is very clear and deep blue sparkling water between the MOQ and Wilbur. When you say, "The point was simply to show a similarity between ideas, a continuity in Pirsig's thinking with respect to levels, but I also happen to know from Wilber and others, that the same basic idea is found in virtually every thought system throughout the world, except our own" - are you seriously suggesting that 'our own' history displays no evidence of social pecking order analogised in Theistic narrative; presence to DQ; mystical perspective? Surely some mistake dmb? Quality determines all differentiation's. The MOQ explains what these are in terms of evolution. dmb: BUT, if you need to see this stated in Lila to accept it, I found one without even looking. Mark 18-5-04: dmb, then i imagine 'it' found you? Always the best way! dmb: It doesn't make a very fancy case, but since this is such a reasonable and harmless assertion, I hope that a simple one'll be enough. Mark 18-5-04: dmb, It is incorrect to suggest that, "the same basic idea is found in virtually every thought system throughout the world, except our own" because value differentiation's determine all patterned experience, everywhere, not just levels or hierarchy. Value differentiation is about better and better still, in other words, increasing coherence, which leads to an absence of differentiation's! dmb: At the beginning of chapter 12 Pirsig says, "This classification of patterns is NOT VERY ORIGINAL, but the MOQ allows and assertion about them that is unusual. It says they are not continuous. They are discrete." (My emphasis) Which brings us to Sam's comments... Mark 18-5-04: dmb, i believe you have made a number of mistakes, and you urgently need to consider the following: 1. All differentiation's are value differentiation's, even rational (systematic) ones. 2. Therefore, it is incorrect of you to suggest that 'our own thought system' does not contain that which others do. 3. Rationality is a Western Intellectual, pragmatic methodology. 4. Therefore, it is 'our own thought system' which is lacking in other thought systems, and not the other way around as 'Wilbur and others' suggest. 5. Rational method, as intellectual art, is compatible with The Way. 6. The MOQ combines The Way/Tao/Quality and Evolution. I should like you to address these points fully in your next post if you please? Thank you. dmb quotes Sam: ........, although Pirsig says that the levels are discrete, they are not _absolutely_ discrete, in other words, there are ways in which they relate to each other. "They all operate at the same time and in ways that are ALMOST independent of each other." (ch 12, my emphasis). The way that they relate is through a 'machine language interface' (from his analogy with computers), "the biological patterns of life and the molecular patterns of organic chemistry have a 'machine language' interface called DNA." (ch 12 again). dmb replies: I think you've missed the point of Pirsig's computer analogy. He uses it to explain his "unusual" assertion; that the level are "discrete", "not continuous" and "have nothing whatsoever to do with each other". Immediately following this unusual assertion, he says "This observation is impossible in a substance-dominated metaphysics where everything has to be an extension of matter." and then moves directly to the analogy, telling us explicitly that it is intended to illustrate each level's independence. "An excellent analogy to the independence of the levels, Phaedrus thought, is the relation of hardware to software in a computer." This is where the "Machine Language Instruction Repertoire" comes into the picture. More below... Mark 18-5-04: I agree. I had to laugh at this point because Sam is here taking a literal reading of Pirsig. But Sam knows that a literal reading of the Bible is easier to avoid! dmb quotes Sam: Fifthly, at least if we go from the DNA example, there seems scope for suggesting that there is a particular pattern, (closely related to the static latch which is the 'machine language interface'), which is the primary 'vehicle' for the operation of DQ at each level, ie the 'migration of static patterns toward Dynamic Quality'. dmb says: There is a particular pattern related to the MLIR which is the primary vehicle for DQ? This is very unclear, but I get the impression that you're saying that this "interface" is a third entity that sits between one level and the next, like a gasket, a washer or some kind of lubricant. This would be a fiction that is defied by Pirsig's explanation of the MLIR. And even if my impression is not correct, I think its safe to say that it wouldn't hurt to seek some clarity by taking a closer look at what he says about the "Machine Language Instruction Repertoire"... Mark 18-5-04: Sam's conclusions are the result of a literal reading of an analogy. Fewer words, less hassle. "The two sets are independent. Except for a memory map and a tiny isthmus of information called the 'MLIR' - a list so small you could write it on a single page - the electronic circuits and the programs existing in the same computer at the same time have nothing whatsoever to do with each other." Here we can see the passage where he first introduces the MLIR. And if he'd said nothing else, I can see how this "tiny isthmus of information" COULD seem like an exception to the idea that "the two sets are independent", how it MIGHT seem like there is a third thing that acts as a connector between levels, but Pirsig has more to say about it. He says,.. "These Machine Language instructions were the final achievement toward which all the circuits aimed. They were the end performance of a whole symphony of switching operations. When he got into programming he found that this symphony of electronic circuits was considered to be a mere single not in a whole other symphony that had no resemblance to the first one. ..The Machine Language Instruction Repertoire, which had been the entire design goal, was now the lowest element of the lowest level programming language." I think this idea really gets at the relationship between levels. The very pinnacle of achivement on one level becomes the first baby step of the next. Mark 18-4-05: Now it is dmb's turn to begin a literal reading of his own perhaps? I feel you need to do this in order to align holons with MOQ levels. However, this does not work at all well. If we examine what 'the very pinnacle of achievement' means anywhere, anytime, in MOQ terms, we realise it means SQ-SQ tension or coherence. Excellence. Excellence is, by definition, the best. A symphony is coherent if its performance is excellent. If its performance is not excellent, it is less coherent. The design goal of, 'all the circuits' is to produce a coherent relationship between components, i.e. excellence. At this point, and only at this point, may DQ initiate new patterns of behaviour. (The Buddha nature is just as at home in electronic circuitry remember?) To suggest that a whole symphony playing excellently may become a single note is misleading. The whole symphony achieves an exceptional state. It is this state, not the whole symphony, which is relevant, because the whole symphony may be either excellent or rubbish. dmb: This, I think, is what Pirsig is saying about the relationship between the most complex inorganic molecules and the most basic life forms. Mark 18-5-04: The most basic life forms replicate with little evolution. Some of the oldest viruses have hardly changed in Billions of years. They do not make a note out of complex organic molecules if you look at it this way; viruses are very dull entities. That which moves beyond replication and toward evolution is DQ. For DQ to work there must be exceptional SQ-SQ tension. dmb: Likewise, it's easy to imagine that the very first social level patterns were just beyond the most advanced kind of biological instincts Mark 18-5-04: I do not find this easy to imagine at all unless i take into account coherence in biological entities. I can imagine a state between organisms which is valued in some sense? This state may have been so finely balanced as to allow DQ to establish new patterns of behaviour. But what they actually were is a difficult question to tackle. dmb: or that the most advanced social level values evolve enough to become the most basic of intellectual patterns. Mark 18-5-04: dmb, you are in very grave danger of denying the discrete nature of levels in preference for an extension continuum. The only way we can avoid arguing that a level is not an extension of a previous level is to see that each new level is initiated by DQ. Without this realisation, it may be claimed that a new level includes an old level, which it does not. Lila's child annotation 31: "...a starting point which begins with something else is logically not a starting point." This is where coherence provides insight, because coherence is a state of patterning which appears to lose structure while retaining structure. (Analogously - The thin isthmus which both is, and is not.) dmb: I think we see this in Pirsig's assertion that myths, rituals and cosmology stories "may be the connecting link between the social and intellectual levels of evolution". "From these" he says "the first intellectual truths could have been derived." (end of chapter 30) Mark 18-5-04: I feel an enquiry into how narratives may have become very coherent may shed some light here? Ritual is repetitious, and as any drummer will tell you, there is a fantastic feeling produced when you are 'on' the beat. I don't just mean keeping time, i mean being really on it. It's ecstatic. dmb: And just in case anyone is still tempted to conclude that there is a pattern or patterns on the interface that is an exception to the rule of independence, he says even more. Mark 18-5-04: Coherence is and is not a pattern, this is the intriguing aspect of coherence. "How can a pattern be and not be a pattern," you ask? Coherence is exceptional relationships between patterns; exceptional tension. I find it much easier to imagine how, at this point, differentiation moves towards Unity in a combined and mutual process which accommodates DQ: Event stream --------> Coherence <-------- Goal of Evolution dmb: "Although both the circuit designer and the programmer knew the meaning of the instruction, 'Load Accumulator', the meaning that each knew was entirely different from the other's. Their only relationship was that of analogy. Mark 18-5-04: Coherence is better than analogy because coherence is a concrete enquiry into the character of real empirical relationships: From: http://www.siliconstrategies.com/article/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=19502401 "The underlying design of Triad's analog blocks is not complex. Each tile contains two operational transconductance amplifiers, an output driver amp, a configurable bias current generator, one each configurable resistor and capacitor array, an array of transmission gates and a small area of configurable logic. >From this palette can be assembled a wide range of devices from simple amplifiers and active filters to sigma-delta converters. Both continuous-time and switched-capacitor circuits are supported. The first chip, the MSSA-1, will combine 12 such tiles with about 27,000 gates of ViASIC-type logic cells. The chip is being fabricated at Austriamicrosystems AG in an analog-oriented two-poly, four-metal 0.35-micron process. This is far from state of the art for digital ASICs, of course, but it is, as Wrappe put it, "the sweet spot for excellent analog performance and reasonable digital density." dmb: ...Even in this narrow isthmus between these two sets of static patterns called 'hardware' and 'software' there was still no interchange of meaning. The same machine language instruction was a completely different entity within two different sets of patterns." Mark 18-5-04: Moving away from this excellent Lila analogy and into the relationship between evolutionary related levels, i feel we can see that coherence provides what this analogy is indicating: "a completely different entity within two different sets of patterns." Event stream --------> Coherence <-------- Goal of Evolution What is termed an 'entity' here in analogy, is actually coherence in the MOQ? dmb: So the Machine Language Instruction Repertoire is described is "a tiny isthmus of information". From one level it looks a great symphony, the entire design goal, the height of achievement. But to the next level it looks like a single note and serves as a basic building block. It's not a third thing that sits between levels nor even an entity that functions equally in both. Mark 18-5-04: I applaud your rhetorical efforts to diffuse the software/hardware analogy of it's 'third entity' content dmb, but your building block analogy simply reinstates the 'extension' model of levels. As you know, levels are discrete. If one symphony becomes a note, we are simply changing level scale, not level function. In order to explain a new level function we need a basis which has nothing to do with the old level; DQ. DQ is involved with the old level in a far less coherent repertoire of patterns than as the basis of a new level. Much od what you say makes great sense to me - i can see you are trying hard and i support you. However, the only way i can see of progressing is to abandon analogy and discuss concrete examples of SQ-SQ tension or coherence. Coherence appears to be empirically verifiable and real. dmb: The analogy serves to illustrate that there is "no interchange of meaning" even within that tiny isthmus. The point is to show that the levels are like oil and water, that one is NOT an extension of the other, that they are "not continuous", Mark 18-5-04: But your analogies, 'first baby step of the other' and 'symphony becomes a note' generates problems here dmb, because you identify a beginning point which is part of the old level. That reintroduces reductionism, which is not on. You want your cake and you want to eat it also. I feel this may be because you wish to include structure as part of the oldest idea known to man? But this has been dismissed above as a confusion between general value differentiation's and particular rational differentiation's. dmb: that "the two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other", that the levels are not only "independent" but even "in oppostion" to each other. Thanks. dmb Mark 18-5-04: The hardware/software analogy says nothing about morality or opposition of levels. This analogy illustrates the discrete nature of levels, not opposition. You conjure opposition out of thin air without explanation. In order to provide a moral progression and an account of opposing levels i feel we have to understand clearly that the basis of a new level is DQ. Because there is no relationship between DQ as the start of a new level and the old level, we may accommodate opposition as a vast increase in freedom. The opposition between levels is all about freedom isn't it? All the best, Mark MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
