Hello again folks...
I have just posted a separate piece on DQ and sQ, so I shan't cover
the same ground twice...
<snip!>
ROGER WROTE:
I wouldn't say I disagree yet. Let's dig into quantum interpretation and
the
MOQ. My only warning is that I disagree fundamentally with reductionist
approaches that subatomic relationships are representative of higher level
interrelationships.
CURTIS:
I disagree with you, Rog. Perhaps you need to reconsider how you percieve
the MOQ. The MOQ says a lot of stuff, and we have the good Pirsig to thank
for that! [Thanks!] But nobody's perfect, and we should take it as a given
that the MoQ will be dynamic, too. It will evolve. I regard the MoQ as a set
of observations about evolution ocurring within a complex system in *any*
phase-space. A phase-space is any place where variables can interact. Now,
in this light, can you say that subatomic particles are not as much
variables
inhabiting a phase-space as the stock market or your Aunt Thelma's
stockings?
The specific methods employed by a successful 'variable' cannot be trans-
ferred between levels of Quality -- they have to be considered in their own
phase-space -- but in general, the broad rules defined by MoQ are applicable
to every level.
DAVID WROTE previously:
This is how questions of our perceptions are tied in with the overall
scheme of the MOQ. Epistemologically speaking, our perceptions
are indirect. They are heavily mediated through all the layers of
reality that preceded the intellect in historical evolution.
ROGER WROTE:
This I totally disagree with. Intellectual experience is not buffered
experience.
CURTIS:
Not buffered; but still subject to the interpretation imposed by our
neuronal
pathways. And not indirect, for they are complex reactions to stimuli in a
complex chaotically-taut phase-space (our brains), and are themselves
subject
to evolution and quality judgments prior to even being called 'perceptions'.
PLATT WROTE previously:
I agree with Roger. Not only is intellectual experience not buffered,
but we can directly perceive Dynamic Quality, as examples in Lila of
the song, the heart attack, the brujo, the baby, etc. clearly illustrate.
ROGER WROTE:
Well David? You and Bodvar and half the squad seem to hold this belief.
Platt and I and others disagree. In fact I think the intellectual level is
closest to DQ and the most dynamic.
CURTIS:
I think I probably disagree with the lot of you (so there!), because I have
differing views on what constitutes DQ and sQ -- those are in another post.
However, I would agree that the intellectual level is closest to DQ, for the
following reasons:
1) Evolution always takes the fastest route
2) A higher level (intellectual) always has more Dynamic Quality Events
than a lower level (social) because of (1).
Gotta bath the baby now...
Keep it real,
Curtis.
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