Hello everyone
Doug's axioms are not meant to be MOQ axioms, per se. Doug and myself have
some key areas of disagreement and the axioms speak to me differently than
to him. With that in mind I will continue...
Platt wrote:
>Hi Glove, David B. and Group:
>
>Thanks Glove for your comments about Doug’s axioms.
>
>I still have some trouble with “flux” being DQ because, according to
>the axiom, flux is measurable in Hertz while DQ is unmeasurable
Hi Platt
While I am not exactly sure where Doug is going with this I will try and
explain why DQ is measurable indirectly. A simple analogy might be a
theoretical "object" like a black hole. Even though we cannot see a black
hole we can determine its (theoretical)
existence by x-ray emissions occurring near the event-horizon. A black hole
is one quantum state. The "size" of a black hole is irrelevant in the way we
normally think of as
size. Dynamic Quality could also be said to be one quantum
state?
Measurement is a very complex term. While Dynamic Quality may be undefinable
it may be measurable with a degree of uncertainty, just like the black hole.
Still, measurement is not understood by anyone at this time. "It" is simply
implicit in observing reality?
>
>Also, I'm puzzled by "preconditions of awareness” because I think it
>runs into the same buzz saw of infinite regress that ultimately
>destroys "cause." What precondition was valued to create the
>precondition that was valued to create awareness?
Glove:
Taking the observation as a complete and unitary static quality reality
(experience as Quality) the
only precondition necessary is the ability to perceive Quality, to
experience. Starting with
experience as Quality Doug's axioms work for the MOQ. Experience is
implicit. The axioms are assumptions based on experience.
The "buzz saw of infinite regress" happens when we take the experienced and
label "it" as an object, representational of an independently existing
reality apart from the observer/subject. Since the MOQ rejects subject and
object in favor of experienced, infinite regress is also rejected. The MOQ
is not reductionistic as is classical subject-object thinking.
>
>Which raises again the issue of subject-object rationally-based
>scientific language being hopelessly inadequate to deal with the
>ultimate meaning of the MOQ, just as rationality becomes incoherent >in the
face of quantum mechanics.
Glove:
It may be that we have to develop very specilized terms when dealing with
the MOQ. Hopeless? Perhaps. Niels Bohr ran into the same language problem in
trying to describe his framework of complementarity.
>
>It's frustrating. Here we find ourselves immersed in a metaphysics
>which we believe to be important and yet find it hard to explain to
>anyone else. Even among ourselves there’s wide disagreement on
>some points.
Glove:
I agree it can be very frustrating but very rewarding too. That rare moment
of epiphany... maybe that's what it's all about, who knows?
>
>The mystic aspect--that's what so hard to grasp in words and why I
>think Doug’s axioms, based on SOM, are questionable. Without
>recognition and understanding of the mystic part, the MOQ goes
>nowhere.
Glove:
Understanding and recognition seem to belong to static quality patterns of
value and not Dynamic mysticism.
>
>I've racked my brain ever since joining the Squad to come up with a
>way to understand DQ, and make others understand, without relying
>on strange, ancient, oriental texts or modern, long-haired, bearded
>gurus. I also want to avoid using loaded terms like religion,
>spirituality, or mysticism. (As soon as you mention religion or
>mysticism, the room quickly empties. Many associate spirituality
>with New Age nonsense.)
>
>The closest I've come is pointing to the esthetic experience, our
>universal sense of beauty. Say what we will about the Victorians,
>many of them had a love of craftsmanship--a sensitivity for beauty in
>the products they made. Pirsig mentions how the Orientals have a
>reverence for their work based on cultural tradition. The Western
>world also possesses a long cultural tradition of work related esthetic
>consciousness, beginning with the ancient Greeks and continuing
>right up to 19th century Europe until the factory system and mass
>production began to take its toll. (David B. may provide some
>historical perspective on this.) To restore a sense of pride in the
>beauty of the thing produced--whether a doctoral thesis, a scientific
>experiment or a hamburger at the local fast food joint--would go a
>long way to heighten awareness of DQ. But it may be too late.
Glove:
I guess it starts with each of us as individuals. What is Quality? Is it
merely pride? Craftsmanship is
focusing on the basics at a very fundamental level until simplicity is
acheived. Intent might be a better word than pride. How to restore a sense
of
intent in the beauty of a thing produced... the Quality... not in the object
or in the subject but just Quality.
>
>I have to hand it to environmental activists who are as much
>motivated by saving the beauty of nature as for saving mankind. As
>long as we have the former there's always hope for the latter. Those
>involved in architectural preservation also have my admiration as do
>museum curators and others dedicated to saving the best works of
>man. There's hope as some of their arguments for government
>participation gain wider approval.
>
>Still, I get discouraged. But when I begin to doubt that the MOQ will
>someday gain a wider impact, I remind myself of a phrase penned
>by Stephen King, the famous writer of horror fiction:
>
>“There is fine Waterford crystal which rings delicately when struck,
>no matter how thick and chunky it may look, and then there are
>Flintstone jelly glasses. You can drink your Dom Perignon out of
>either one, but friends, there's a difference.”
>
>It's that difference which science, religion and philosophy have
>failed to explain. Until Pirsig. It's that difference, universally
>recognized, which may help open more minds to the MOQ.
>
>I apologize for wandering off the subject, Any thoughts?
>
Thank you for sharing your comments! Dynamic Quality is always irrelevant
and you give me much to ponder.
Best wishes,
glove
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST