Hi Rich and Group:
On behalf of those who, like me, see the Metaphysics of Quality
supporting the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics, I
offer the following from the book, “Taking the Quantum Leap” by
Fred Alan Wolf:
“According to the tenets of the complementarity principle, there is
no reality until that reality is perceived.”
This corresponds to Pirsig's belief that primary reality is an
empirical perception.
Rich has pointed out that “the word ‘experience' has always implied
the existence of an experiencER and that which is experiencED.”
Likewise, in our dualistic language, the word “perception” implies a
perceiver and a perceived. The implicit question left hanging when
one uses the word "perception” is “perception by whom of what?”
For most people, primary reality is thought to be a perception of an
object of some kind located “out there” in physical or mental space --
a structure, theory, photon, map, self, etc.
For Pirsig, primary reality is a perception of Quality, something
which you, being a pattern of, are already.
For most people, the “by whom” is a living creature of some kind
although to quantum physicists the “whom” is still a matter of debate
Some say it must be a human being. Others argue that it could just
as well be a robot.
For Pirsig, the “whom” is any pattern of value -- human, animal,
robot or rock. In a letter to Anthony McWatt, Pirsig wrote:
"In the MOQ, the higher up the evolutionary ladder you go (from sub-
atomic particles to people) the more freedom you have in making
preferences. This is why generally a person’s experience will be that
much richer and complex than a dog's while the dog's experience
will be that much better than a tree's which will be better than a piece
of rock's and so on."
For Pirsig, perception occurs at all levels. What these patterns
perceive expands as you go up the ladder. A human pattern of value
perceives more patterns of value than a fish pattern of value.
So if I'm getting Pirsig's meaning right, primary reality in the MOQ
consists of some patterns of value observing other patterns of value.
But there's really no difference because “patterns of value” are
intellectual concepts that are derived from and are secondary to the
perceptions themselves.
In other words, what see is you-seeing, and what you are is your
perceptions. If your talking about ultimate or primary reality, there
really isn't anything else except you. That's why I claim, “Mine is the
only world.”
But if you're talking about secondary, “scientific” reality, then the
subject/object, mind/matter, me/others outlook works reasonably well
except for a couple of huge philosophical problems. It doesn't
explain values. It doesn't explain why life should be opposed to
physical forces. It doesn't solve all those platypi that Pirsig brought
up in Lila.
Until the proponents of dualistic reality can come up with convincing
answers to those questions (and explain quantum weirdness), their
arguments will always come up short.
Platt
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 - 16:03:09 BST