[MD] MOQ/BOC

Wed Aug 11 23:42:18 PDT 2010

Hi , Dan, superb article, rasorsharp written, you are stepping in and out of
the informationparadox
without getting mangled , nice , a book contains itself of course.

Thanks for providing this , Dan, DMB is wright , you do rock , dude
i will think this over for a while, its alot.
Thanks , Adrie

2010/8/12 Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com>

> Hello everyone
>
> I've been away working in the dirt and despite other intentions
> thinking quite a bit. Reading over them, these thoughts seem a bit
> jumbled but I want to try and get them down while they seem fresh in
> my mind. Please forgive any inconsistencies; this is a very rough
> draft.
>
> Khoo, in a recent post, mentions the potential value of marrying East
> and West when it comes to philosophy. I agree; so let's in an effort
> to clarify both the MOQ and the Book of Changes compare both
> documents:
>
> The language of the Book of Changes (BOC) is a method of
> differentiation, as is the language of the MOQ. Any method of
> differentiation can be seen as a process where the point is to define
> a particular "something" amongst many. This process acts to zoom in on
> a "something," to isolate it, and zoom in further to acquire details
> where the details themselves become "somethings."
>
> This process reflects the use of recursion, where, as the process
> concentrates focus on a something, it differentiates within the
> previously differentiated and so on, and from there identifies the
> contents of that something until all elements, all parts, of the
> something have been clearly defined and in doing so has that
> something, as a whole, been identified.
>
> "In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided
> into four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social
> patterns and intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all
> there are. If you construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic,
> Biological, Social and Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing,"
> that is. Only Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any
> encyclopedia, is absent." [LILA]
>
> The MOQ states that reality can be sorted into four evolutionary
> levels. That's all there is. The BOC, on the other hand, uses 64
> hexagrams to describe reality. Since we cannot possibly map "all there
> is" in a 1:1 format, the BOC as well as the MOQ must predominately use
> analogy and metaphor to describe "all there is." The MOQ is a map that
> describes the territory. It is not the territory itself. How could it
> be? Reality shifts and changes constantly. As soon as we nail it down,
> poof, it is gone.
>
> Looking to the four levels of the MOQ, it seems that as we move from
> the lower levels to the upper we move from the general to the
> particular. Just as every biological pattern of value is also an
> inorganic pattern but not all inorganic patterns are biological, every
> social pattern is an intellectual pattern but not all intellectual
> patterns are social. The hallmark of intellect is discrimination. This
> discrimination applies to the hexagrams in the BOC as well. Starting
> at the baseline, all four levels of the MOQ can be seen within each
> hexagram.
>
> Each hexagram of the BOC can be seen as complete in itself yet in the
> language of the BOC, each hexagram is entangled within the context of
> all other hexagrams. In the language of the MOQ, each level is
> entangled within the context of all other levels to make up the whole.
> Each level will contribute an expressiveness to any other level. And
> that expressiveness is only describable by analogy to the
> characteristics of some other level. Since, like the BOC, the MOQ is
> supposed to contain "all there is" it should be able to include
> itself. I'd like to take some time and explore how it does that, as
> well as how we can define a level through the association of all other
> levels.
>
> "This classification of patterns is not very original, but the
> Metaphysics of Quality allows an assertion about them that is unusual.
> It says they are not continuous. They are discrete. They have very
> little to do with one another. Although each higher level is built on
> a lower one it is not an extension of that lower level. Quite the
> contrary. The higher level can often be seen to be in opposition to
> the lower level, dominating it, controlling it where possible for its
> own purposes." [LILA]
>
> In the language of the MOQ, each successive level can be seen as in
> opposition to the lower. This gives us two semantic poles to a level's
> definition. This duality of opposition runs within each level as well
> as in between each level. For example, starting with the inorganic
> level as a base line, we transition into biological patterns of value
> that take inorganic patterns and usurp them to their own purposes.
>
> Transitioning to social patterns of value, we see how biological
> patterns are usurped and used by the Giant for its own purposes... we
> only have to think of the human resource department at any
> corporation. In addition, within the social level, religions have
> played a major role in in the advancement of science (which is nothing
> but the obliteration of the old ways) as well as in never-ending war
> and bigotry.
>
> And finally, intellectual patterns value freedom from any social
> constraints. But there's discord within the intellectual level too.
> For instance, subject/object metaphysics is seen as a high quality
> system of pattern of value. SOM proposes that reality is composed of
> subjects and objects. Period.
>
> But the MOQ opposes it in that SOM presupposes value lies in either
> the subject or the object, or both, since subjects and objects are all
> there is. The MOQ states that subjects and objects arise from Quality,
> not the other way around. In the MOQ, reality is composed of patterns
> of value rather than subjects and objects.
> "But although the four systems are exhaustive they are not exclusive.
> They all operate at the same time and in ways that are almost
> independent of each other." [LILA]
>
> Each level is a representation, or a set, of qualities. Each level
> represents a quality extracted from the duality of opposition. In one
> sense, we might look at the MOQ as an exponentiation reflecting the
> application of an opposing set of relationships within each level,
> with each level embedded within a context set by the previous. In
> building our understanding of reality in this manner, we move from the
> general to the particular. This is but half the story though, if we
> include a focus on going "down" once we reach the top of the MOQ
> hierarchy.
>
> Due to the manner in which the hexagrams of the BOC are formed, each
> is in fact made up of its own nature plus the input of all other
> levels. And in the MOQ, when we focus on any one level, what is
> reflected is the influence of context on the expression of some
> archetype through that context. In other words, we can consider each
> level like a hexagram, as having a spectrum made up of influences from
> all other levels, seen through the context of the level under
> consideration. It seems plausible to consider that this Dynamic
> differentiation is how the MOQ includes an expression of itself within
> itself, as does the BOC. A book contains itself, of course.
>
> "So what the Metaphysics of Quality concludes is that all schools are
> right on the mind-matter question. Mind is contained in static
> inorganic patterns. Matter is contained in static intellectual
> patterns. Both mind and matter are completely separate evolutionary
> levels of static patterns of value, and as such are capable of each
> containing the other without contradiction.' [LILA]
>
> Matter starts as an idea, a static intellectual pattern of value. An
> idea starts in the mind, a static inorganic pattern of value. These
> separate evolutionary levels define each other by their opposition.
> Looking to the BOC, each hexagram is constructed of bits of
> information encoded in lines representing complementary features of
> reality. Each hexagram is an idea that defines itself through the
> opposition of other hexagrams as well as the lines themselves.
>
> Tired now,
>
> Thanks for reading,
>
> Dan
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>

-- 
parser