Hi Andrea and others,
> About meaning.
> Meaning, as opposed to information, requires both an object (to which
> meaning is
> attached) and a subject (who "attaches" meaning to an object, e.g., to
> the
> sequence of symbols "dog"). In the most obvious way, we attach meaning
> to symbols
> (eg, words); but then, we also attach meaning to "things", "events",
> and all we
> are confronted with in life.
Very much true, and well put. But reading things in this forum like 'SOM
opposed to MoQ' reminded me of something fundamental Pirsig in my
opinion tried to say. First comes DQ, or pure experience, and only
'later' the Cartesian split between subject and object. Sure, we can't
deny that we need subjects, objects and relations between them when we
try to DESCRIBE meaning, but a SOM remains relative or constructional,
not absolutely real, which is I believe in line with Pirsig's thinking.
The last year or so I've been digging in the 'Quantum Mind', and I found
the article that Ross sent very interesting. What occured to me just now
is that the trinity Subject, Object and Relation (between the first two)
is never or very rarely absolutely real; only in degrees. For
simplicity, suppose that in experience there is only a content of two
Quantum Bits, and therefore every time you're thinking only two of the
three bits that fully would describe the Trinity are definite. That
sounds vague, I admit. Maybe only an action in this world would really
make the quantum bits (2 of 3) definite. My understanding of the
uncertainty principle and the Quantum system (or mind, in my opinion)
BEFORE the collapse of the wavefunction, tells me that in some way, the
information capturing subject-object-relation (although that at first
glance seems to contradict my previous postings in the Quality vs.
information thread!) is not definite, but in multiple configurations at
the same time; between real and not-real or so.
Maybe that doesn't make sense at all, but for the ones who understand a
bit of Quantum Mechanics (probably there're quite some more here who
have a much better understanding than me!) it maybe might a bit.
An example would be fit here, maybe. We never fully can comprehend or
attach every meaning possible to a certain object at a certain moment.
We only can focus on certain aspects. We have a focus of attention, and
maybe that means that, in the focus the quantum bits we have available
in our mind, the 'density' (translated in probalities of collapse after
measurement or action of quantum mind) is higher. When we try to answer
a question the answer is at one moment often clear to us, but not
definite. In a very real sense, it only becomes real when we decide our
actions, that is, when we formulate a sentence and put vibrations in the
air... I believe that we have a free will, but in line of the quantum
mind imagine that we're thinking of two possible answers to a question
asked to us. However, the focus of attention is located in one answer,
and according to the quantum perspective you could say that the
probality of collapse in that answer is much higher than a collapse in
the other one: We choose the answer that is in our focus...
Does that make some sense to anyone?
Greetings, Patrick.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:45 BST