JONATHAN TO MAGNUS.
INTUITION ISN'T DQ
DQ ISN'T MORAL
NOISE MAY BE MUSIC
Hi Magnus, Don R, Walter, Squad,
It's good to know that you are lurking in the background avidly
reading every post.
I quoted:-
>> The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery.
>> There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition
>> or what you will, and the solution comes to you and
>> you don't know how or why.
>> - Albert Einstein
>>
MAGNUS:-
>I hope everyone recognises this for what it is. In MoQese it says:
>"Objective science have and will never discover anything truly new.
>Only DQ is capable of that. This is why DQ is more moral than IntPoVs."
>
Quite frankly, I prefer Einstein's version. It's a big assumption that
intuition is DQ, and one I believe may be wrong.
IMO, "logical thought" and intuition are both intellectual patterns,
though for centuries the former has been dissected and analysed, and the
latter almost ignored.
A relevant post from Don R (Drose) just came in (Thanks Don):-
<<<<According to Paul Davies, intuition is but one of three methods of
reason
and must be rigorously checked by the other two - deduction and
induction.
It may simply be pattern recognition. Intuitive leaps may just as easily
be
off a cliff as onto new plateau.
>>>>
Regarding DQ and morality, it makes no sense to talk about DQ
being "more moral".
Pirsig wrote:-
"A chair, for example, is not composed of
atoms of substance, it is composed of
dharmas.
This statement is absolute jabberwocky
to a conventional subject-object
metaphysics. How can a chair be
composed of individual little moral
orders? But if one applies the
Metaphyisics of Quality and sees that a
chair is an inorganic static pattern and sees
that all static patterns are composed of
value and that value is synonymous with
morality, then it all begins to make sense."
According to this (static) patterns have value and value is morality. To
talk about DQ morality suggests that DQ is also pattern - that seems
completely contradictory to me. I just looked over what I wrote back in
the June DQ discussion and see that even then I though the same thing:-
JONATHAN [2nd June]:-
>DQ is neither good nor bad - this requires further evaluation.
JONATHAN [4th June]:-
<<<<
It occurs to me that perhaps DQ has no good/bad morality, and this
evaluation is an SQ thing. Pirsig's "hot stove" example may be not the
best one for illustrating the point. It forces one to straight away
consider the obvious BAD quality of the situation.
Consider an alternative example of someone diving into freezing water.
First reaction is SHOCK (DQ), then evaluation of the situation "THAT's
FREEZING" (bad quality) or "EXHILIRATING" (good quality).
>>>>
Magnus:-
>DQ is more moral than IntPoVs
>It does not degrade intellect in any way, it just puts it below DQ.
Or maybe it just doesn't mean very much at all. I was much more
impressed by Walter's relationship between DQ and morality (as
paraphrased by Roger):-
<<<The morality of a static pattern is determined by the
potential the pattern has in letting DQ be realized to the maximal and
BEST extent. ... The degree of morality of an event is the possibility
that
DQ, as a consequence of this event, is optimized over time.
>>>
Magnus:-
>I also wish everybody could stop talking in terms of right-left brain
>halves, meaning vs. pattern etc. etc. etc. and start talking in MoQ
>terms instead. Then you don't have to be so surprised every time
>someone presents some new "stunning" research results.
Pirsig has an impressive breadth of knowledge, but he is just one
person. There are many "research results" which he might have chosen to
support
MoQ had he only known about them. The Lila Squad has thrown up more of
these examples than RMP could possibly have found. Some are "stunning",
some trite, whether they be about robotic societies, neurological
experiments
or whatever.
>I've been quiet lately, mostly because I'm interested in the MoQ
>and not every other conceivable metaphysics. No offence, but it's
>hard to see through the noise.
But seeing through the noise is what we all have to do - the search for
MEANING. Once you find it, it often turns out that the "noise" was
actually music.
Jonathan
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 - 16:02:39 BST