Mon, 28 Sep 1998
Glen Dickey wrote:
> 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........etc
Glen and Diana and group.
Glen's solution to the discontinuity of matter question is
valid, although a little "easy", but that goes for my own proposition
(that MOQ's Inorganic Pattern of Value is fundamentally different
from SOM's "substance"). But I can think of no other explanations
than those two.
Now to the other riddles that Diana lists:
> > 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.
Perhaps all are different limbs of the MIND platypus, but
first to this sentence: " .....Pirsig has already given us the idea
that consciousness is value". Not to pick nits, but his idea is that
EXPERIENCE is value. Consciousness and awareness are terms not found
in LILA as far as I know. Experience is all there is at all levels,
while the said terms have an unmistakenly "mind" load. I would say
that consciousness is always SELF-CONSCIOUS and awareness always
SELF-AWARE (a subject different from objective environment) so
if my SOTAQI holds that is Intellect. And it's obvious; Q-intellect
always holds up the worth of individual self (against the diffuse
many of Q-society) and as intellect is our usual point of view;
no wonder that personal worth and integrity ranks high.
And yet, in spite of being the highest static value, Q-intellect is
subordinate to Dynamic Quality, demonstrated in moments of
ecstasy when self vanishes. Our great fear - losing ourselves -
becomes the higest goal; a strange contradiction that has no
explanation in SOM, but is the most natural thing in the MOQ
(Dynamic Quality is identical to religious mysticism. LILA
p.381)
Way back (Nov 1997) Diana wrote:
> You could say that as humans we have four different selves. Yet
> there must also be one Self integrating the four. Bodvar says that
> the answer is "Quality!" As the MoQ says that everything is Quality
> that's a pretty safe bet. But we need to know what kind of quality
> and how does it relate to the four levels.
After my considerations about self as Intellect's chief value, I
don't think there is any self - as identity!!!! - at the other
levels, but there is value; all organisms value (their) life and
(their) "society", but the idea of a superself is is Intellect's
SO-fixation.
Bodvar
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