Troy Becker (email@example.com)
Sun, 9 Aug 1998 07:46:05 +0100
my big human brain is seeking some elusive static quality:
a few of us are having hard times with the fuzziness of the four levels
of [static] quality. i want to discuss something that was misleading
me, and then eventually do some "talking" about Pirsig's four mystery
levels. i'll even discuss the moral "evolution" code, a bit.
we are diluting Pirsig's 4 levels of quality by making concrete models.
models (examples) are necessary for "understanding". but we must
understand that when we think of a rock as an example of inorganic
quality, we should remember that the rock "has" inorganic quality. the
rock is a static latching of quality (defined to be the rock) that is
not really separate from anything else in the universe yet, except in
that it contains "static, inorganic quality". a piece of quartz and an
agate, then, have the same value, thus far.
for Donny, especially: next, let's say the rock has biological quality.
i know this sounds ridiculous, but bear with me. as far as the universe
goes, the rock is formed, the rock is shuffled about (on earth)
meagerly, the rock may split, and eventually, it can be said, the rock
(compared to the static latching of biological quality with which we
started) ceases to exist.
it gets worse. the rock has social quality. this is easier to observe,
since everybody knows these days that electrons, protons, atoms, and
molecules all have typical behaviors. an atom (a constituent of the
Giant rock) comes into "being" and then ceases to "be". as far as
rituals and institutions go, we may have to get down to the active spin
of the electron to observe "ritualistic" behavior, but there is nothing
fuzzy about the institution of atoms, or molecules (molecular tradition
goes back billions of years).
lastly, look at what i have done. clearly, the rock has intellectual
quality. it's not inherent in the rock, except perhaps in the aesthetic
"quality" of the rock that inspired me. i am not saying the rock has a
self-awareness! i am saying that to get to the rock that is in my
message, the rock is a static latching of all four levels of quality.
note that by latching to all four levels of quality, the rock seems to
be very unique and separated from all else that exists.
depending on the reactions to this dissertation on the rock, i may have
stumbled across something good, here.
it takes my damn big human brain to ponder the existence of the rock,
and in doing so, show that it is a unique object, and separate from me.
my brain? it is gray inorganic matter that unarguably came about,
continues to thrive, and will "die"; it composes of several (neurogical,
vascular) societal systems; and it, perhaps, is a SOURCE of intellectual
quality (nonetheless--it is "uniqueizable", so it MUST have intellectual
quality). I have shown that both a rock, and my brain "have" all four
levels of quality, with differing value patterns and soforth. likewise,
i believe it can be shown that anything we can cognize as having social
quality or biological quality or even inorganic quality, also "has" the
other three levels of quality.
our ideas and thoughts are not excluded. they are value patterns
(inorganic); they come about, mutate, grow, and subside (biological);
they consist of fragments of prior ideas and experience, which also come
about, grow, mutate, and subside (social); lastly, ideas and thoughts
are distinguishable and so they have intellectual quality, too.
this makes sense. in Pirsigland, anything that has latched has "static
quality". everything we define, we are actually pointing to "how it
latches". since Pirsig's four levels of quality are static
("underneath" the "static" category), they explain a "categorization"
for static latchings.
i want to tie in this Troyist static view to Lila, and Pirsig's
discussions therein. the "evolution" of static quality sits much better
with me, understanding that all static "things" have different value
patterns of all four quality levels. to follow, Pirsig's moral code
holds the water he meant it to hold. i guess that's about all i have to
say, for now.
inorganic: a pattern, at least.
biologic: a pattern that starts, "lives", and ends, at least.
social: a pattern consisting of interacting biologic patterns, at
note: by logic, this is reducible to: a pattern of interacting patterns.
intellectual: a unique pattern.
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:37 CEST