[MD] psst, Squonk, Over here

[Case]

Mark and Gene and Anyone else who wants to butt in,

I have sorely neglected this thread mostly because when I respond to Mark I
have to untie the other half of my brain from behind my back. This thing
started out covering a wide territory so thanks Gene from giving it a more
narrow focus. I think this part is critical but the Chaos part is what
really makes me quiver with anticip...

[Mark  26b-10-06]
> Distinctions are sq. Yin and Yang are sq.
>
>  [Case]
> I could actually get on board with that as long as DQ and SQ are sq too.
>
> [Mark 26b-10-06]
> This is because i tend to view  DQ and Quality as the same thing.
>
> [Case]
> This I don't  get at all. This just seems to be throwing Quality out of
> the MoQ. I really don't see how this works in fact if all you have in 
> the MoQ is DQ and SQ, it seems very dualistic.

[Gene]
I think you guys are basically saying the same thing, but maybe that's just
my interpretation.  I, like Case, tend to tie the MoQ and the Tao together.
I think of it this way: The Tao, the Path, The Way, the un-nameable,
ethereal Unknown is Quality.
Quality is just another word for the thing which we call Tao.
 
Mark 30-10-06: Fair enough.

[Gene?]
SQ and DQ are yin and yang, constantly flowing from one to another, shifting
back and force between the two, combined, intertwined, yet distinct.  Both
together is what makes Quality.
 
Mark 30-10-06: This i am not sure about Gene. In ZMM, Romantic Quality and  
Classic Quality are viewed as aspects of Quality.
But in the MoQ, RQ may be seen as inorganic and biological patterns -
emotional, while CQ may be seen as social and intellectual patterns -
underlying form. Therefore, both CQ and RQ are sq.
I'm not sure where yin and yang come into this, but i have a feeling they  
too are static aspects of experience. The important thing to note here is
that yin and yang, when suitably balanced or harmonised, produce a third
thing. 
This  is a logical consequence of two complimentary aspects. And i feel the
third thing is close to DQ.

[Case]
And I would say the third thing is Quality. You are making much of the CQ RQ
distinction and yet the way I see it what Pirsig developed in ZMM was an
analytic tool for reconciling duality; CQ/RQ, S/O and ultimately DQ/SQ. I am
fully aware that you are stating the situation as Pirsig states it. But I
still maintain that while the ideas are right they are mislabeled. It makes
no sense to have undefined Quality split into undefined DQ and defined SQ. 

Yin and Yang are not mentioned in the Tao te Ching. They are a later
developments in Taoist metaphysics but they are the active and passive
principles; things the wiggle and things that hold still; fire and earth,
dynamic and static. In the sense that we can wrap concepts around them yes
they are SQ but they are a peculiar kind of static. Any set of dualist
labels you put on them seems to both capture and miss some essential Quality
in either of them. They are the kind of ideas that we can point towards but
never quite focus upon. Yes, you are right they are static... almost... like
static but then not quite holding still either and if you look at their
intersection you see the Tao: Quality and you feel it and you know it is
there but then the balance shifts and you have to go chasing after it down
that winding path that is The Way.
____________________________________________
 
Gene:
As for the levels of SQ, I tend to think of Buddhism for these.  The 4
levels are like a Tomoe with 4 flames. Similar to the yin-yang, they are
distinct elements, intertwined, that move into each other constantly. Which
brings me every time to the Middle Path. The idea that all things are
everything, yet nothing. We are always trying to say This thing is Static!
or This is Dynamic! and This is only social quality! Which of course is
nonsense. Any thing is Always a combination of both Sq and Dq, and any
amount of the levels could be involved. None of it is any One Thing,  that's
only ever part of the story.

Hmm, I actually intended to keep this pretty short, so I'll stop here, but I
think I'll ruminate on this further.

Great conversation you two!

Mark 30-10-06: Both the Tao and Buddhism have nothing to say regarding
evolution. There would be no need to suggest DQ if evolution where not an
aspect of our experience - we would do just as well with Quality.
In other words, in a static, non-evolving reality, Quality is  harmony.
In a Dynamic, evolving reality, the harmony we ascribe to Quality is going  
somewhere.
Once evolution is admitted, differentiation becomes more, not less
pronounced: 
I am not a Buddhist Gene, so i'm not tied to Buddhist teaching.
However, if the MoQ is a new form of Buddhism, then i may be a Buddhist
after all?

[Case]
I completely disagree that Taoism says nothing regarding evolution. In fact
that is all it is about. It is about change and how to focus on the Quality,
the Tao, the beautiful in the face of that change. The Tao is The Way the
path of life. It is a journey and journeys are about change. 

If by evolution you mean Darwinism, well of course not, but Darwin was born
2500 years later and what his theory is all about is how stability arises
and maintains itself through the flux of time and changing circumstances. It
is in a sense about how biological even inorganic and social systems find
stability in the face of constant change. At their core, evolution, Taoism
and the MoQ are one and the same thing. In biology at least they are all
three about how growth and life arise and are sustained. 

When you say:

"There ARE inorganic patterns devoid of biological quality, there ARE
biological patterns devoid of social quality, etc."

True enough and I am sure you know this but there are no biological patterns
devoid of inorganic quality. For biological pattern inorganic quality is
defined as patterns that allow for biological developments. And so on up the
chain. There are no social patterns in the absence of biological
quality...This is about emergence. The emergence of dynamic biological
systems from stasis in the inorganic. Dynamic social systems from stasis at
the biological. Intellectual... oh no you don't, we have enough on our
plates already.

Even taken at face value the four static level exhibit progressive levels of
dynamic emergence, increased complexity arising from and depending upon
underlying stasis at the lower level

When we talk about Goodness in a social system we mean the system allows its
members to develop and thrive. I think FDR called this freedom from want. If
viewed as organisms, social systems operate on a different time scale than
their individual members. Like cells are in a different time zone than the
organisms they comprise. This is the whole holon thing. As a result when you
try to assess the Quality of a social system you can't do it without taking
the long view. Chinese society is about the oldest continuous society I can
think of. Judaism is very ancient and successful. The Hopis, Zunis and other
pueblo Indians of North American are very ancient tracing their roots back
to the Anasazi culture which began around 1 A.D. What these have in common
is the ability to promote the continuation of a way of living under changing
climate and conditions that has stood the test of time and allowed their
people to thrive, even when The Way was difficult even oppressive. 

Now as I see it: That is Quality