Diana and Squad,
diana@hongkong.com wrote:
> I've been trying to find a solution to the
> discontinuity-of-matter-at-the-quantum-level platypus. Pirsig's
> statement that matter is stable inorganic patterns of value might be
> correct MoQ but I think we need a little more explanation than that to
> keep the physicists happy.
I would like to make a few cavets in regards to this question. While matter may
seem to be dicontinous at the Quantum level, it isn't at the macroscopic level,
which was the viewpoint from which the MoQ was written. I think it's important
to keep this in mind while discusing this subject. Additionally I think it's
important to acknowledge that the only accurate description of phonomena
occuring at the the sub-atomic level is mathmatics. I think any of us would be
hard put to defend the position that we had personally experienced this level of
reality. Furthermore, the MoQ subscribes to empiricism which to some extent,
those of us who are not conversant with the language of sub-atomic physics,
can't honestly say we have of this particular phenomena. My purpose in making
these cavets? I'm not trying to discourage discusion of the subject but I do
think it important not to take our wanderings in this area too seriously. This
being said consider the following:
What was the state of the universe before the Big Bang occured? The Big Bang
occurs and we immediately see the forces of static patterns at work organizing
the universe into atoms, molecules, stars, galaxys, ... Perhaps prior to the Big
Bang the universe was nothing more than a field of potential, a field of Dynamic
Quality. It it very probable, based on current cosmology, that the universe was
in a state that does not correspond to any of the existing structures we now
perceive (with the possible exceptions of Black Holes which have been theoriezed
to effective be their own universe) While the static forces set about
immediately to claim the macroscopic universe don't we still perceive at the
sub-atomic level an echo of the original state that existed prior to the Big
Bang? A state with no known static patterns? A state that values freedom above
everything even? Sound familiar? Today we think that a vacume isn't truly
empty but is filled with virtual particles, who create and destroy each other
for a net effect of about zero. Perhaps the macroscopic level has sucumbed, but
in the sub-atomic realm the vote is still out. An echo of the pre-existing
condition of the universe? I've always figured that Pirsig saw this implication
of his work but was either too humble (not a bad quality) or too incredulous at
the implications of his own thought process. I don't speak math well enough to
work the equation for Dynamic Quality, which I would bet is not constant through
out the multi-verse but I think there are some really exciting leads from
philosophy(the MoQ) to the physical sciences for change. I know i'm really out
on a limb but I really think this is a defensible position. Won't someboby
please come saw me down to size? Smirk.
> IMO the problem arises from the way LILA is written. Because it's woven
> into a novel it's difficult to point to a clear structure. When you read
> it from cover to cover it seems beautifully intuitive but then when you
> try and compare sections from different chapters the relationship isn't
> always obvious.
Pirsig's meta-physics is the best damn metaphysics i've ever read bar none and I
stand by that. That being said, let me say something about some of the other
metaphysics. One of the problems i've encountered in understaning other
meta-physics is that their either so wrapped up in the language of the century
they were written in, or were so long winded that i'd be utter confused and
bored to tears by the time i'd finished reading that I wouldn't care what they
said I just wanted them to stop writing. Some texts (Kant comes to mind) you
just wanted to scream; "Just say it! Say what mean and stop hiding in all this
gobeldeguck! This is your basis for reality! Shit!". I realize that there's
people in this very discusion group who don't suffer from this affliction (kudos
to them for being able to wade through). Another problem i've encountered is
the "this is so obvious it should be just taken for granted" school of thought
(ala Ayn Rand) which provokes the "Didn't you skip something there?" reaction.
Then there's what I call the "totally unempathic characterization" (ala J.P.
Satre) who looks at the void and feels nausea making me react with "you patheic
loser, life may be inheirently meaningless but let's party at ground-zero till
we die" (which is why I prefer Colin Wilson to that wimp Satre). Finally
there's Religion which I think Joseph Campbell had it right when we called it
the science of 2000 BCE. It just doesn't hold up in 2000 CE. I guess i'm in a
sharing mood this evening. I never read anything that even remotely convinced
me that religion and science were connected like Pirsig does. I'm not trying
to say the MoQ is the final and perfect map of reality, it's just the holes are
a lot smaller than the others. If you would like to hold another work up as an
example of what a good written metaphysics looks like i'd love to see it.
> Externally the MoQ has an even harder task ahead: it has to explain the
> nature of consciousness, nothing less. Pirsig has already given us the
> idea that consciousness is value, but that's only a starting point. With
> a fully realized MoQ we should be able to explain quantum phenomena,
> artificial intelligence, even the nature of the self.
Deductive reasoning is all fine but let's not forget that MoQ subscribes to
empiricism.
Sincerely,
Glen the Mad
Scald of Marshmallows
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:34 BST