Hello everyone
This is the completed version of the email I inadvertantly sent on 3/23/99.
>>ROB REPLIES TO THE 5 QUESTIONS.
>>
>>It would be awkward to answer the questions specifically. I can tell you
>how I
>>have resolved them
>>
>>Short answer:
>>
>>Reality is made of patterns. These patterns while being conditional, also
>change
>>the conditions. Reality is also made of a finite number of entities which
>are
>>sensitive to the infinite patterns.
>
>Glove:
>
>Rob, when you say patterns, what exactly do you mean? are you using it as
>patterns in themselves or are they patterns of value? If they are patterns
>in themselves, then aren't we back at Aristotlean philosophy? If the
>patterns are conditional, on what are they conditional? Pirsig say they are
>patterns of value, conditional on value. If you are saying the same thing,
I
>agree with you.
>
>Is reality made up of a finite number of entities? That's not something I
>would know. There is a place I could take you (in the summer of course)
>where you could hear no end to the sounds of insects at night, listen as
you
>might. You could take a flashlight and shine it into the dark sky and see
>all the swarms of insects flying, illuminated in the light beam, and yet
not
>feel a single one on your body. Why is that? It amazes me to no end, let me
>tell you. Where was I now...oh yes, finite number of entities....I could
>neither agree nor disagree with that. But I would disagree that those
>entities, either finite or infinite, whichever the case may be, can be
>sensitive to an infinite number of patterns. Infinity boggles us. Perhaps
>its better to say there are an infinite number of entities who are
sensitive
>to finite patterns of value, rather than the other way around, I dont know.
>Do you?
>>
>>
>>Long answer:
>>
>>I observe a reality made of two things: patterns and sensitivity to the
>patterns.
>
>Glove: By calling them patterns of value you incorporate the best of both
>worlds.
>
>>Rob:
>>
>>When I look out at the window and see a car driving down the street, it is
>>meaningless for me to think whether it is primarily dynamic or static.
>Using the
>>different definitions it really could be either. What is important is
that
>there
>>is the pattern of car and it takes a "me" to be aware of it. The number
of
>"me"s
>>in this world is finite, but the patterns are infinite. "Car"ness is
>unlimited.
>
>
Glove:
Is car-ness unlimited? I would say no, that what you call car-ness is not
unlimited, but rather it is a specifically pre-conceived notion of what a
car "is" and as such, is definitely limited to a specific notion of car. You
may want to read "Pragmatism" by William James, especially his essay "The
One and the Many" where he addresses this very complex problem much better
than I have the ability to do here.
Rob:
>>
>>Change comes when two patterns interact or meet.
Glove: This is something I must do some serious pondering on. If there is no
subject/object division, what are patterns? If patterns are considered
patterns of value, then I can agree with you, I think. Interaction seems
extremely complex however.
Rob:
>>
>>Take planteary orbits. Did dyanmic quality overcome inertia and gravity
to
>cause
>>planetary oribits. That is another strange way of saying it. Why not say
>gravity
>>is a pattern, inertia is a pattern, and orbits are a pattern?
Glove:
Pirsig does say that gravity is a pattern of value in addressing a paradox
that Anthony Mcwatt and Eric Priezkalns bring up in their paper The Role of
Evolution, Time and Order in Pirsig's
"Metaphysics of Quality".
Anthony writes:
>Anyway,
>here's Pirsig:
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>"The section in chapter 3 (in ZMM) about gravity points out
>that the body of knowledge we call science is in fact
>subjective. The law of gravity exists only in the minds of
>modern-day people, who can change this law any time new
>information shows that a higher quality law of gravity can
>be constructed. Einstein did so very recently. Other
>changes may come. The sentence, "There are no things in
>themselves outside experience" is true but the MOQ sees
>experience differently from subject-object metaphysics.
>Experience in a SOM is an action of the object upon the
>subject. In the MOQ, experience is pure Quality which
>gives rise to the creation of intellectual patterns which
>in turn produce a division between subjects and objects.
>
>Among these patterns is the intellectual pattern that says
>"there is an external world of things out there which are
>independent of intellectual patterns".
>
>That is one of the highest quality intellectual patterns
>there is. And in this highest quality intellectual
>pattern, external objects appear historically before
>intellectual patterns...
>
>But this highest quality intellectual pattern itself comes
>before the external world, not after, as is commonly
>presumed by the materialists. If the law of gravity
>preceded the concept of the law of gravity, by, say, 3.5
>billion years, then what happens to that 3.5 billion year
>old entity, when someone like Einstein changes the law of
>gravity? Does that mean that what happened 3.5 billion
>years ago has to change retroactively? Thats amazing how
>Einstein can change something that existed 3.5 billion
>years before he was born. Even the fake Hindu swamis don't
>claim to have that power.
>
>....both the "law of gravity" and "gravity" are
>intellectual static patterns, but gravity (when you take
>the quotation marks off) is said, in a very high quality
>interpretation of experience, to be an external reality."
(Correspondence from Pirsig to McWatt)
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Well, I don't know about you, Glove, but I think the above
>doesn't sound too far away from the basis of a solution to
>Eric and I's paradox if you replace "gravity" with
>"time". (Corespondence from McWatt to Glove)
Glove:
Hopefully this will help as it seems to fit in very well with what we are
discussing. I warn you that you will have to read it and re read it very
carefully to really even begin to start to understand what Pirsig is getting
at, at least I did.
Rob:
>>
>>Patterns arise when certain conditions are in place. We meet a person of
a
>>certain gender who "matches" the requirements of our hormones and so
>forth -- we
>>experience attraction. There is not an indendent "force" to the patterns
>called
>>dynamic quality. There are just patterns mixing in unique ways that make
>reality
>>seem dynamic. The patterns while being conditional ALSO change the
>conditions.
>>
>>That is why we can never be certain. We might think the patterns we are
>>experiencing are constant, but there can always be something new around
the
>>corner. You can't contain reality.
>>
>>I should probably get into the "me" aspect of reality. This is definately
>a
>>different aspect of reality to the patterns. "I" never really experience
>"you"
>>directly. "I" only infer the existence of "you" through your influence on
>the
>>patterns I experience. If we were to meet and I shook your hand, I would
>assume
>>that there is a "you" at work inside your body. That just makes the most
>sense.
>>We are both some sort of "spiritual" entities, existing outside the
>patterns of
>>reality, somehow sensitive to them.
Glove:
If you have ever riden a motorcycle, especially in a state without helmet
laws, then you may have felt what Pirsig talks about in Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance as far as no longer being a spectator but actually
being immersed in the environment we normally view as separate from our
self. I do not happen to believe that we do exist outside patterns of
reality at all. A nice scoot on a bike will bring that home, at least it
does for me.
Rob:
>>
>>The terms dynamic and static are relevant to me when discussing the finite
>>entities of sensititivity. These terms are not absolute but relative.
Glove:
I sense a note of relativism here. In my opinion, we must get beyond
relativism (much easier said than done) and enter what might be termed
quantum reality. I have found a very good place to start is by investigating
the theory behind quantum computing, as put forward by David Deutsch. There
is some info on the web if you run a search and I would also recommend his
book "The Fabric of Reality; The Science of Parallel Universes and Its
Implications".
Rob:
>A
>dynamic
>>"mind" is in direct contact to the patterns whereas a static mind is not
in
>>reality or in the present. It is judegementally interpretting reality by
>clinging
>>to patterns of the past (eg. a woman's place is always in the home.) or
it
>is
>>judgementally interpreting reality by clinging to worries about the future
>(what
>>if I ask this girl out and she says "no". -- when it really doesn't
>matter?)
Glove:
It seems to me that you are close here, but lets look at when you say
"dynamic 'mind' is in direct contact to the patterns". It seems to me that
you are alluding to the patterns being objects that the subjective "mind"
can come into contact with, am I right?
It is my opinion that we judge all of our experienced reality in the fashion
you say and in fact we are forced to do so in order to form agreements with
what we experience. In Pirsig's quote above, he said:
>But this highest quality intellectual pattern itself comes
>before the external world, not after, as is commonly
>presumed by the materialists.
I will leave you with that to ponder, as I sense it is very profound but I
myself am unable to really get a grasp on it right now. :)
>>
>> MOQ:
>> Quality
>> / \
>> / \
>>Dynamic Static Levels
>>
>> Rob's view:
>> Reality
>> / \
>> / \
>> Quality Sentivity to Quality
>> / \
>> Dynamic Static
>>
>>This re-interpretation makes a lot of sense to me. I could go into it
much
>>deeper, but I wanted to get a taste of what you think.
Glove: I would wonder if you are considering the intellect level as that
which has sensitivity, yet is not quantifiable?
Best wishes,
glove
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 - 16:02:54 BST