Sorry for posting again, but I have been philosophizing about this stuff for
too long in a vaccuum. Feel free to criticize. I'm probably wrong anyway.
1) Isn't randomness defined as being a part of DQ? Isn't DQ and SQ just
another label for the Chaos/Order split?
2) Saying that there is a pattern outside of the patterns we know is kind of
like saying that there's a universe outside of our own. Or that there could
be a little happy land living inside our quarks just because we can't see
it. To me, it's a flaw in the question. I answer: Mu.
3) "Mu" is defined as the combination of the following: (I don't know, unask
the question, maybe, and not enough information.) Is this correct?
3) I'd like to look at the limits of intellectual static quality. In math
terms, I'd like to define the set:
THE BOX OF KNOWLEDGE (a.k.a. a picture of Static Intellectual Quality)
_________
/\
|
|
Question -> Answer
Q->A
Q->A
Q->A->Q->A
|
|
\/
_________
This picture describes all of the questions in the Static Intellectual
Quality Universe. And their subsequent answers. For sake of argument, let me
say that all the questions in the universe can be changed so that Yes or No
or Mu would be appropriate answers.
Ex: What is Two plus Two?
Could be rewritten as: Is Two plus Two equal to Four?
In Pirsig's Structure this is equivalent to: Does Four value Two plus Two as
a precursor?
There are, by definition, an infinite number of questions in this box. And
yet, this box (set) has limits.
I describe this box as "The Set that contains all Sets, including itself."
This is also known as Russell's Paradox.
Another way of describing this is: All things are possible, including the
possibility that this statement is wrong.
(You may note that this is a contradiction. And yet, one of the
possibilities is that contradictions are RIGHT. Therefore, this statement
cannot be refuted. Every statement is confined within this one.)
Let me use the Box analogy:
What if we were living inside a box. What would we see? Well, we'd see six
walls and that's about it. We would be able to theorize about the outside of
the box by looking at other, smaller boxes within our larger box.
Ex:
_____________________
| |
| |
| |
| |
| O |
| -|- ______ |
| /\ | | |
| | | |
| ------ |
----------------------
(Sorry, I can't draw.)
We would be able to see boxes all over the place. They could even be
commonplace.
What if all of Static Intellectual Quality is in this box? What if there
were lots of other boxes inside our box with us and we disregarded them as
useless?
What if contradictions ARE the boxes?
Please comment, but only if you'd like to...
>From: "Peter Lennox" <peter@lennox01.freeserve.co.uk>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Random Patterns?
>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 21:08:42 -0000
>
>I looked over what I said, and it seemed to me that what I was implying is
>that randomness is truly subjective, but that the patterns we perceive
>(:the
>world about us) are the subjective impression of some other, objective
>reality. But unlike Plato, I'm not saying that the patterns are not true,
>just that they're not the 'whole truth'. The patterns we perceive are those
>we *can* perceive - they are our 'desciptions' of that other non-subjective
>reality, and without developing these 'descriptions' the universe would
>indeed seem chaotic. So our world is the product of our mind! is this
>solipsim, then?
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Sent: 08 March 2000 06:33
>Subject: MD Random Patterns?
>
>
> > Peter and y'all:
> >
> > I've only a few minutes, but liked your Monday post and want to squeeze
>in
>a
> > few thoughts.
> >
> > I think you're on to something with random-ness and scale. As I
>understand
> > it, Pirsig is saying that the entire universe in nothing but DQ and
>static
> > patterns. And I think this means there is no such thing as disorder, not
> > really. Even the energetic and kenetic movement of gas molecules in a
>closed
> > chamber are patterned because the molecules themselves ARE patterns of
> > static quality. Nothing in creation is without a pattern. You've just
>got
>to
> > look at the proper scale to recognize it.
> >
> > But that oxymoronic topic isn't as interesting as the other point you
> > raised...
> >
> > PETER SAID...
> > "I have to defend the notion that many of the patterns that humans are
> > interested in are in fact subjective-based, ...yet maintain that
>"reality"
> > is not entirely the product of subjectivity. I can do this by resort to
>the
> > notion that there exists 'something' objective, without having to claim
>to
> > be able to define it."
> >
> > DMB
> > Well, sure. Not only are humans interested in their point of view, but I
>was
> > trying desperately to get across the idea the Pirsig doesn't reject
> > "subjectiveity", but actually expands it to the lowest levels of
>creation.
> > Subjectivity is a feature of every static pattern. Even sub-atomic
>particles
> > make choices in the MOQ, no?
> >
> > And just for the record, Solipsism doesn't just recognize our "interest"
>in
> > the subjective, it says that the world is CREATED by subjectivity, by
>"mind"
> > in the classical sense of the word.
>
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:40 BST