Platt mainly (Wavedave, John B, Glenn and Marco mentioned) A PS for
Squonkstail.
Platt said to Glenn and me:
> You gentlemen seem to suggest that a bunch of PhD's at Princeton are
> complete dolts who never heard of the Law of Large Numbers. I find
> such a conclusion ludicrous on its face, a trillion to one shot. (-:
> If you want to disprove the experimental results, you'll have to do
> better than that. To find out what's been going on, you can check it
> out at www.princeton.edu/~pear/
I have been thinking - for a change.
The reason I opposed Platt's scientific test proposal is related to the
dynamic/static interplay inside the levels (3WD) and the equation of
spiritualism=DQ (John B). It's probably my "mind" phobia that kicks in, but I
read in Platt's test a search for mind-over-matter "miracles" and that 3wd
push a mind-interpretation of how DQ works at the various levels - that goes
for John too.
And my said "angst" is based on my understanding that if the S/O is to be
replaced by DQ/SQ as the METAPHYSICAL first split - and as mind/matter,
spirit/body ...etc. are derivatives of the S/O they cannot return single-handed
and claim the role of Dynamic Quality; They are part and parcel of the SOM
and will forever invoke their dualist partners ..and the SOM is back.
Another fundamental understanding of mine is that of the static patterns
expanding in the dynamic void so it's only at the front edge the
static/dynamic action is (remember the train metaphor?) so right now it's
intellect's outer fringes that confronts the void. I know that Pirsig (in the
quote that 3WD brought up) speaks of the increasing freedom at the higher
levels, yet if "static" means what it says, social value is as rigid as matter
...as is most of intellect.
A small detour:
Maco's entry in the creationism thread was excellent (it pays to have a rest:)
yet the creation vs chance disagreement is over how life came to be in the
first place, not so much evolution. Back in the Devon(?) age when inorganic
value was the one that bordered on to the dynamic surroundings it spawned
biological value - THAT is MOQ's "creation" ....afterwards life grew in
complexity from the new value, that's MOQ's evolution, thus it combines the
two.
Platt refers to life's "exploitation" of inorganic values. Correct, but it does not
alter them, carbon is as carbonic in a living organism as in nature. It's also
correct that the higher value affects the lower - very obvious in the
social/biological relationship, but likewise: organisms do their biological
things - must do them for social value to have a stable platform. And
Intellect impacts on society to the degree of creating different cultures, but
social value can't be altered. I feel that Platt is seething over this nit-picking,
yet his test indicate an effect on inorganic value ITSELF ...as I see it, but I
may be wrong.
I won't say any more but ask for your opinion on this fundamental issue lest
we fall prey to Glenn's definition of supernaturalism. Marco, please apply
your rested intellect on this.
Bo
PS
Squonk, you asked me about the SOLAQI. It's not very mysterious or
subtle, just about how the S/OM is to be integrated by the MOQ. So I'll just
start by asking how you see that done? If Pirsig's well-known
inorg+bio=objective and soc+intell=subjective satisfies you, fine! No,
problem. The "meme" lay-out I haven't studied or found the Quality
connection to.
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:18 BST