[MD] Wanted: A proper foundation

[MarshaV]

Greeting Andre,

I hope your move went well.


At 11:00 PM 1/28/2009, you wrote:
>Marsha to Bodvar:
>
>A pattern has a coming and a going.  Its strength is based on its
>relationship with other patterns.  It has attributes and aggregates
>which are also patterns.  It is most probably an aggregate to another
>pattern.  It is in a constant state of change.
>
>Please explain how static patterns of value are independent and
>'exist very much in themselves'.  Please do not use the SOL because
>it has not been sanctioned by anyone.
>
>Andre:
>
>Hello Marsha, hope you do not mind me jumping in (knowing that Bodvar is
>very capable of looking after himself) but it is an intriguing issue about
>which I would like some clarification myself.
>
>If Quality (experience) is the fundamental building block of the world and
>it is accepted that the MoQ combines the four levels of patterns within an
>evolutionary hierarchy I would suggest firstly that the four levels are
>'expressions' of different evolutionary phases of Quality. The inorganic
>being the 'oldest', the intellectual pattern the most 'recent'.

Yes, I think that is what RMP has stated.  Yet, all patterns and the 
four levels are themselves patterns.  And your suggestion, "that the 
four levels are 'expressions' of different evolutionary phases of 
Quality." is also a pattern.  And why I think the MOQ as a theory is 
a spov that represents a better world-view.



>'Though each level of patterns have emerged from the one below, each one
>follows its own rules i.e. there are physical laws such as gravity
>(inorganic), the laws of the jungle (biology), co-operation between animals
>(society), and the ideas of freedom and rights (intellect). It is important
>to note that the different laws of the four static levels often clash e.g.
>adultery (a biological good for one's species) v. family stability (a social
>good)'. ( McWatt, The Role of Evolution,Time and Order etc, 1999).

Yes, but still analogues upon analogues upon analogues.



>I think the "exist very much in themselves' refers to each of the four
>patterns 'following its own rules' and they have been given equal
>ontological status, i.e. each level of existence (and its 'role/
>function'), is properly recognised within the evolutionary framework called
>the MoQ.

I wondered if Bo just meant that a particular pattern belonged only 
in one level.  I would agree with that.  I certainly do agree that a 
pattern exists independently from its own side.



>I must also add that these are concepts (about reality) and should not be
>confused with reality itself. In this way it must be understood that a
>pattern of 'static quality' is abstracted from the 'continually changing
>flux of immediate experience'(DQ).

I very much agree.



>'By "static quality" Pirsig isn't referring to anything that lacks movement
>in the Newtonian sense of the word but to any repeated arrangement whether
>it is "inorganic" (e.g. chemicals, quantum forces), "organic" (e.g. plants,
>animals), "social" (e.g. cities, ant nests) or "intellectual" (e.g.
>thoughts, ideas). Static quality is any pattern that appears long enough to
>be noticed within the flux of immediate experience (i.e. within Dynamic
>Quality) 
>[*18<http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=mjs&ver=Bb2Jwb553WA&am=R-AwhcT38CCJDf1i2YUbuIM#Ref_18>
>*]. As Pirsig's theory is pan-experiential, the experience referred to by
>"immediate experience" applies to any entity (be it a sub-atomic particle,
>plant, worm, human being etc.) that is *derived from* immediate
>experience'.(McWatt, op.cit).

I agree.  This URL brought me to 'Unauthorized Error 401'.


>I interpret this to mean that all is in a dynamic, evolutionary flux, ever
>changing, ever interacting. Recognition or non-recognition thereof depends
>on ones own static patterns.

Again, I totally agree.


>Hope this has been of some use Marsha. I do recommend you read the paper to
>which I refer so you can experience it yourself.

I did read Ant's 'The MOQ and Time' a while back, and this might be a 
good time to reread it.  Unless you meant a different paper.

I think we agree. At least I didn't sense any disagreement.

Thank you for responding.


Marsha




_____________

Disclaimer:  To quote Sgt. Schultz from Stalag 13,  "I know nothing!"