[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Platt Holden]

[Case]
> But Arlo is pointing to a concept that I believe subsumes the whole
> notion of static levels: resolution. 
> 
> At what level of detail are we directing our analysis? If you wished to
> study of how an individual water molecule interacts with its neighbors
> much is gained by considering the static and dynamic properties
> involved. The molecule itself is a static manifestation of a set of
> dynamic relationships between atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. This static
> relationship reduces the unpredictability of the individual atoms and
> allows new dynamic relationships to occur among the water molecules.
> (notice that there is already a shift in resolution from the atomic to
> the molecule level.) At the molecular level the temperature (read:
> dynamic rate of motion) of the unbound oxygen and nitrogen atoms in the
> air influence how the static water molecules will interact with one
> another to form clouds. The speed and direction of the wind are dynamic
> forces that influence the shape and size of the clouds (yet another
> level of resolution)

Looks to me like you are using static to mean unchanging and dynamic to 
mean changing. That's not what Pirsig means by static and Dynamic 
Quality. 
 
> You have all ignore the second part of what I said, so to quote myself:
> "And he is saying that the mental tools we use to analyze ethical issues
> can also be applied to raindrops falling on our heads. There is a way of
> seeing these things in the same light. By looking at the dance of static
> and dynamic properties we get a clearer picture of any given situation."

Again, to you static and dynamic properties have nothing to do with 
morality. To Pirsig, dynamic and static refer to and are all about 
morality, values, Quality.

> I thought the whole point of metaphysics is to establish set of
> principles that can be used at any level of analysis (degree of
> resolution). Physicists are looking for a Theory of Everything. Such a
> theory will have to account for the relationships between individual
> molecules, ants, primates and model sailing groups. To me at least,
> looking at the static (predictable) and dynamic (uncertain) properties
> at play at any level of resolution meets this test. If you try this out
> on, say, your next trip to WalMart I believe you will see a remarkable
> self similarity not only across scale but across levels of abstraction.

Pirsig presents a theory of everything -- the  world as a moral order. 
Raindrops are static moral patterns. And yes, in my trips to Walmart I 
see a remarkable moral order across scale and levels of abstraction. I 
also think sometimes of Sam Walton, the individual whose unique idea at 
the individual level started the whole enterprise, and thank him 
profusely. 
 
Platt