[MD] psst, Squonk, Over here

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

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

<snip>

Mark 30-10-06: 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.
 
Mark 31 (boooo!) 10-06: Looks like we are close to saying similar things  
after all.
I note you are not disagreeing with my suggestion that yin and yang are sq  
patterns.
 
Case:
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.
 
Mark 31-10-06: While the DQ/sq division may be descrbed as a duality,  i find 
this inadiquate Case. DQ is undefined so the dualism sounds epistemic -  the 
known and the unknown. Metaphysically it looks like One and the many,  
Ethically DQ generates the best patterns.

Case:
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.
 
Mark 31-10-06: This last looks a bit like it has been shoehorned in,  because 
you've expressed sympathy with the yin/yang harmony = Third thing  argument.
 
Case:
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.
 
Mark 31-10-06: We may have got there in the end case? I really ain't gonna  
lose sleep over any of this. It sounds ok to  me.
____________________________________________

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.
 
Mark 31-10-06: Ah, but Aristotle's metaphysic expresses very well, '...how  
growth and life arise and are sustained' but still there is no room for  
evolution in it.
Evolution has always been there in tha background; some early  (non-theistic) 
notions regarding the origin of life presented primitive forms of  evolution 
- animal parts falling together in a void until something viable  emerged - 
(as presented in Plato's 'Protagoras' for example) but Darwinian  evolution is 
an advance on any of that. The MoQ improves on Darwinian evolution  be placing 
values at the centre of it's metaphysical basis.

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
 
Mark 31-10-06: There is much i agree with here Case. No problems.
Love,
Mark