Hi Jonathan and Squad
You wrote:
> 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.
>
I think intuition is our name for what happens when DQ affects
intellectual patterns. If DQ affects biological reproduction, we
call it mutation and if DQ affects inorganic patterns, we might
call it quantum effects. Same same but different.
What I see here is the superior explanatory power of the MoQ. It
reduces and generalizes seemingly different areas to easy and
self evident connections.
> 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.
>
Didn't you recently state almost exactly this last sentence
about DQ?
I think it describes about half of what DQ is about.
> 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.
>
Some wordpicking:
Patterns are composed of value. Value is morality. SQ is
patterns OF value. DQ is just value, unpatterned value.
I think it makes perfect sense to talk about DQ being more
moral than any pattern, not even the Big Bang would have
happened without it.
> 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.
> >>>
>
Optimized over time, a nice phrase but I'm afraid it's too
intellectual
for other patterns to act according to it. Do you think the
first amino-
acids consciously were trying to optimize their DQ over time?
> 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.
>
Why is everybody so desperate to find this meaning of life? So
single-mindedly searching for it that they don't see that it's
the other
way around. Life IS the meaning.
Magnus
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