ROGER TRIES TO WEAVE FINTAN'S BUBBLES,
GLOVE's TREE, BO's RESPECTIVE REALITIES,
PLATT'S MORALITY, THAT CURSED CAT, AND
EVEN KEN'S BRICK INTO ONE POST
Glove started with:
<<Bodvar brought up the tree falling in the forest again, which I remember we
discussed months ago. The whole idea behind the koan is to realize sound is
experiential. This is an enormously enlightening notion to come to realization
of. Either we hear the sound, or a sound is communicated to us in an
unambiguous way, or there is no experiential event known as sound. There is no
Quality Event without experience. If there is no experiencer, no observer,
there is no experience.>>>
And Bo took the handoff and added:
<< Starting with your closing words about "the nature of reality", I don't
think there is any such natural (objective) reality outside of experience.>>
Roger now grabs the baton:
A Quality Event creates the subject and the object, right? So I agree that a
QE without an experiencer or subject makes no sense. If it has not been
experienced, it is still DQ -"the conceptually unknown".
However, just because Dan wasn’t in the woods doesn’t mean Bodvar, I mean
Bodvik, wasn’t there. So if Bodvik heard it and Dan didn’t, it is
conceptually known to Bo and conceptually unknown to Dan. In other words, sq
to one person could still be DQ to another. In these terms, the speed of
light becomes an expanding bubble ala Fintan that defines the maximum
expansion rate of a quality event’s conversion from DQ to sq.
Now back to Bo:
<< Conclusion: In this sense intellect creates intellect reality and in the
very same sense all experience levels create their respective realities. I
haven't said anything about the Inorganic level, but deduced from the above it
follows that the first value/experience does so at its own plane. Matter is
chaos filtered through the inorganic sieve.>>
And back to Roger:
Let me go a new direction now…… Intellect’s DQ may be inorganic’s sq.
Fintan’s bubbles of expanding QE have to be "converted" into intellectual
experience, or they never become intellectual sq. All we can discuss is that
which is experienced, and by experienced, I mean specifically by the
intellect. Therefore, intellectually speaking, the cat in the box is DQ until
we look inside. Looking converts it, or creates intellectual sq. The tree may
have fallen, but until Dan hears it or hears from Bo what happened, until the
QE event horizon creates him and the fallen tree in the same intellectual
universe, it is Conceptually Unknown.
Now let me loop to Platt and his observation that we select via value what to
observe. The intellectual universe that we help create is to a great extent
chosen by what we look at or what draws our attention. Value creates reality
not just in these criss-crossing QE bubbles, but in which bubbles we value
crossing our path . In the Santiago theory of Cognition, they would state
that we "bring forth" the universe of ourselves and the world around. We then
can share these universes via "structural coupling" through language with
others of our shared socially bonded realm of influence. We create a shared
universe.
Bo can call Dan and let him know the tree fell. The cat can Meow and let us
know it is OK even before we open the box. Ken can get the brick and Email us
whether it is red or mauve.
Viewed this way, the speed of light is an intellectual representation of the
maximum inorganic quality event bubble horizon. Quantum uncertainty on the
other hand deals with two levels of uncertainty….until an inorganic
interaction happens, the particle or wave doesn’t even exist. And we must
observe which one is created (which we can select or VALUE based on what we
choose to look at), for it to exist, as its existence is an intellectual
concept in the first place.
. Pirsig states in SDOV that he doesn’t deny that something out there exists.
However, empiricism demands that he not state what it is until it is
intellectually experienced. There may be gremlins dancing under our beds every
night when nobody looks, there really could be. But if we can never
experience them, by definition they don’t exist in our universe.
Sorry if I lapsed frequently into SOM terminology, the typewriter just started
flowing, and I didn’t want to stop it My guess is that I will disagree with
what I have written when I look at it fresh tomorrow, but, what the hell?
Roger
(oh look…A gremlin! Oh, never mind, it was just a gremlin clone)
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:51 BST