[MD] Able to change well.

[schoadabyool at talktalk.net]

Hello Maguns.





-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 8:10
Subject: Re: [MD] Able to change well.


Hi Ade 
 
First, never mind Frank. He's literally not for real and has a very peculiar sense of humor, just ignore him if he doesn't make sense, he seldom does.




@ I appreciate Frank's sense of humour Magnus. He made me smile.


 
schoadabyool at talktalk.net wrote: 
>My name is Adrian, and i should like to ask a question. 
> 
> 
>Robert Pirsig says in Lila that static patterns are migrating toward Dynamic Quality. 
>I think i've got that right. 
>He also says that static patterns latch and are stable. 
> 
> 
>My question is how can patterns be stable and yet migrate toward Dynamic Quality at the same time? 
> 
> 
>Some patterns seem to be too latched and stable and can not change. So they are bad at being able to change. 
>And yet others must be good at being able to change so they can migrate toward Dynamic Quality as Robert Pirsig says in Lila. 
> 
> 
>How is this possible? 
> 
> 
>Is this a new question or does Robert Pirsig give an answer somewhere? 
 
It's not a completely new question, but I'm actually not sure it has been discussed here. I have thought about it though, very pragmatically I should add. Also, you might have noticed that many here on MD only see static patterns, and the levels, as some theoretical-only division of the world we see around us, so, for them, your question is actually not interesting, or even possible to ponder. They think, what happens, just happens, or using Krimel's words "Shit happens".




@ I'm not sure i have noticed this Magnus.
Everyone here uses divisions all the time don't they?
In fact, divisions are a precursor to being here in the first place, even for Frank.


 
However, since you did ask the question, I'll assume you'd like a more direct answer, and mine goes something like: 
 
One example is viruses. They are stable enough to be able to spread the same infection over more or less the whole world over a season. However, it's also dynamic enough to change into something else, if stopped by a new antibiotics. 
 
But that didn't perhaps answer your question: *How* is it possible? 
 
Then I have another example for you. It's been discussed here a few months ago if you want to search for the thread. It's about what happens when the inorganic level have reached the end of its possibilities. 
 
As you know, the inorganic level is about physics and chemistry. I've even suggested to make chemistry into a level of its own, but that's not important here. Anyway, on the young earth, there was nothing what we now call life, just a big ocean in which chemistry did its deed. Chemistry is pretty static, because what it can do is very statically decided by the laws of chemistry. For example, if an O atom meets a pair of bonded H atoms (H2), then it immediately unbonds the H2 molecule and bind both H to the O atom, making water (H2O). The H atoms snaps into place on the top of the O forming a Mickey Mouse molecule. The laws of chemistry can do lots of other things, especially with the C atom with which it can build long chains containing both carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and other atoms. And every time a chemical experience/event happen, the result is dictated by the laws of chemistry and the atoms involved snaps into their predetermined place. Sometimes, when two of these large molecules meet, they can combine chemically into an even larger molecule and snaps into another shape, or the don't attract eachother chemically in which case they simply bounce apart again. 
 
However, sometimes when such large molecules meet, they happen to fit into eachother's shape like hand and glove and if they're really lucky, they even meet in the right direction so the hand fits in the glove. If that happens, two large molecules have bonded without the help of the laws of chemistry. The bond is much weaker than a chemical bond, but just because it *is* weaker, it's also more dynamic. It can let go of that bond if it "wants" to. I'd even say this is the precursor to what we today call "free will". 
 
Some of these fitting molecules found another molecule that also fit, and some even became so large and complex it could build stuff using other molecules in its vicinity. One day, it was able to build a copy of itself, and the rest is, as we say, history. The history of life to be specific. 
 
I claim that these shape fitting molecules are using biological value, i.e. it's the basis of the biological level and is the first step out of the static inorganic level into a completely new level. The process also gives a very good insight into what constitutes a new level, why they are discrete and how the level dependency really work, and not just a theoretical buzzword. 
 
And to connect this with Pirsig, he has said that taste and smell are clear cut biological value/experiences. And this shape fitting process is exactly how smell works. So, for me, the case is pretty closed. 
 
	Magnus





@ Thanks.
You note that chemistry obeys static laws.
So Oxygen has to behave in a certain way when in the presence of Hydrogen, and it can't do otherwise.
Then you note there is another behaviour which chemicals can adopt, which is not restricted to the static laws of chemistry. You call this biology.
The key seems to be a combination of static and freedom to choose, or free will as you call it.
This chimes with Robert Pirsig's account it seems to me. But i still ask how?
What is the interface between static and freedom?


If you have asked yourself this question, then maybe we can explore it together Magnus?


I understand all this may be useless chatter for anyone who does not value theory.
But i hope we can live side by side in any case.


Thanks
Ade