Hello everyone
jc wrote:
>
> At 9:08 AM -0600 11/18/99, Dan Glover wrote:
>
> >jc, often times what we see in others is a mirror of ourselves. Perhaps
> >you should be asking someone else these questions?
>
> Thanks Dan,
>
> You're right. It comes out better if I ask myself the question ...
>
> >Maybe instead of being arrogant myself, I am the victim of arrogance.
> >Somebody arrogantly pronounced to me that: "we will never understand
> >nature of >reality or nature of self" and ever since the idea has got
> >stuck in my head, >stopping me from trying a little harder."
> >
> > Who did this to me?
>
> I went in there and replaced all the "you" with "me" and it came out truer
> the second time. Since it was truer, this second iteration is a higher
> quality statement. Which leads me to conclude that Truth = Quality. I'll
> have to consider this some more.
>
> On a deeper level, I aknowledge the accuracy of the observation that my
> dialogue is with myself. Even when I try carefully to follow, somebody
> else's system of thought, I find myself comparing and sorting it and
> putting it into place with everything else I got already in my brain and it
> gets distorted. When I say "You", it's because there are these two guys in
> my brain having this dialogue. One I call "me" and the other I call "you".
> But all my words are from me and about me.
Hi jc
Thank you for your gracious response. Indeed all one's thoughts are of
oneself. Letting go of our constantly ongoing internal discursive
dialogue is difficult in extreme but worth effort it takes. Often times
we take insult at others who attempt to point out some deficiency in
ourselves. But that deficiency is only visible if we know what to look
for firstly. Otherwise it goes unnoticed.
>
> <snip>
>
> >jc, are you able to define Quality? Is anyone? If so, you are correct
> >and I concede your point. If not, then do you concede mine? :)
>
> I never tried to define Quality before. But allow me a small hubris here.
> Isn't Quality simply that which defines everything?
>
> Therefore, a question of how to define quality leads one into a logical
> construct called "strange loop" and thus Quality is definitionally
> undefinable. The concept exposes a genetic defect in reason.
>
> We can't truly define infinity because how can you put boundaries around
> forever? But yet we find "that which continues forever" _is_ a
> satisfactory definition and thus I don't see why we can't accept "that
> which defines everything" as a definition for Quality.
>
> Comments?
jc, can we conceptualize "forever"? I can't, though I've tried. I
remember as a small boy discovering that if two mirrors are facing each
other their reflection just goes on and on. I remember standing there,
peering deeper and deeper, but no matter how I tried, there seemed to be
some "thing" just out of my grasp. Beyond definition, but there
nevertheless. Even now, if I happen upon two facing mirrors, I am
compelled to look into infinity! :)
Granted, my question was loaded. Can we describe color to a blind
person? Quality, being essentially beyond our capability to define,
still exists despite our inability to say why. I only asked my Quality
question in defense to your challenge which is beyond challenge really.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> (and technically, all we are capable of placing value on is always all
> >> there ever is)
> >
> >jc, everything is an allegory. However, in placing value we define
> >reality while Dynamic Quality cannot be defined or conceptualized in any
> >fashion. So I both agree and disagree with you here.
>
> I should say all human knowledge is allegory Allegory underlies all intellect.
>
> If Dynamic Quality cannot be defined or conceptualized in any fashion, then
> what are we talking about?
>
> I mean, putting the letters together is at least one fashion that
> D-Y-N-A-M-I-C Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y can be conceptualized.
>
> Recognizing that the concept represents reality beyond our
> conceptualization is also part of the concept we fashion when we discuss
> the term "Dynamic Quality".
>
> Conceptualization is closely related to allegory. (Whew - this could get
> dangerous - a metaphor is like a ...) The statement above which says
> "everything is allegory" could just as easily read "everything is concept"
> and then it would contradict the following statement that "Dynamic Quality
> can't be conceptualized" (is not a concept)
jc, very good points. Actually I've come across a passage in Lila where
Pirsig himself states Dynamic Quality is a concept. In some of his later
writings, however, he cautions against using Dynamic Quality as a
concept. I don't know if this will help and it's a rather lengthy
article, but I feel it may be of some significance to our discussion and
so I will include it here.
------------
ON COSMOLOGICAL ANTIGRAVITY [from SW 5 Feb 99]
The branch of physics called "cosmology" deals with the structure
and evolution of the Universe, and during the past few years it
has become apparent that this field may be facing one of its most
significant transitions. In all the sciences, it is common for
observations to conflict with theory, with a resultant refinement
and even abandonment of old theory for new theory. Indeed, a case
can be made that this is the essence of science, and the basis
for the continued improvement in our understanding of natural
phenomena. In cosmology, a serious theoretical reformulation is
apparently imminent. At this point in its history, the science of
cosmology is evidently in the throes of a major overhaul of
theoretical constructs, an overhaul produced by mounting evidence
relevant for considerations of the structure of the Universe.
Central to these considerations are the distinctions between the
geometries of a "flat" (uncurved; infinite in both extent and
lifetime), "closed" (spherical; finite in both extent and
lifetime), and "open" (*hyperbolic; infinite and expanding
forever) Universe. An important quantity is the Omega parameter,
defined as the ratio of the density of matter (or energy) in the
Universe to the theoretical density required for flatness. An
Omega with a value of greater than 1 implies a closed Universe; a
value less than 1 implies an open Universe; a value equal to 1
implies a flat Universe. The problem for the past 60 years has
thus been to obtain an estimate of the mass density of the
Universe from observations. The current standard conception is
that the geometry of the Universe is flat. Recently, however, new
data have apparently indicated that the entire scheme upon which
models of the structure of the Universe are based may need
serious revision, and such revision may in turn force revision of
certain areas of fundamental physics. ... ... Lawrence M. Krauss
(Case Western Reserve University, US) presents a review of the
problem, the author making the following points: 1) The standard
cosmology of the 1980s, postulating a flat Universe dominated by
matter, is dead. The Universe is either open or filled with an
energy of unknown origin. 2) Although the visible contents of the
Cosmos are clearly not enough to make the Universe flat, analysis
of celestial dynamics indicates there is far more matter than we
can observe, with most of the material in galaxies and assemblies
of galaxies invisible to telescopes... An overwhelming body of
evidence now implies that even the unseen matter is not enough to
produce a flat Universe... If the Universe is open, the current
*inflationary theory of the evolution of the Universe immediately
following the *Big Bang must be modified or discarded. If the
Universe is indeed flat, the Universe must be composed largely of
an "ethereal" form of energy that inhabits empty space ("*vacuum
energy"). 2) The existence of vacuum energy is implied by quantum
mechanics and demonstrated experimentally by the *Casimir effect.
Physicists have thus corroborated the theory put forth by Dirac
(and later by Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga) that space is
filled with fleeting "virtual particles". 3) The author
distinguishes 4 types of matter: a) visible matter, which is
ordinary matter composed mainly of protons and neutrons, and
which forms stars, dust, and gas; b) *baryonic dark matter, which
is ordinary matter too dim to be observed; c) nonbaryonic dark
matter, which consists of exotic particles such as "*axions",
*neutrinos with mass, or *weakly interacting massive particles;
d) cosmological dark matter, which consists of vacuum energy. 4)
Concerning the approximate quantitative contributions to the
dimensionless Omega parameter, the author presents the following:
visible matter 0.01; baryonic dark matter 0.05; nonbaryonic dark
matter 0.3; vacuum energy 0.6. The author states that of the 2
apparent alternatives, an open Universe or a flat Universe filled
with vacuum energy, "either scenario will require a dramatic new
understanding of physics."
-----------
Lawrence M. Krauss: Cosmological antigravity.
(Scientific American January 1999)
QY: L.M. Krauss, Case Western Reserve University 216-368-2000
-----------
We might be correct in equating vacuum energy and Dynamic Quality,
though of that I am not certain. Still, look at vacuum energy's
staggering contributions to dimensionless Omega parameter compared to
visible matter! Now, vacuum energy is a concept, like Dynamic Quality,
but we are unable to conceptually realize it perhaps? Maybe that's a
better way of putting it? I will have to ponder this further.
jc, thank you for your very thoughful and Good comments and I look
forward others you or anyone else might have.
Dan
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 - 16:03:14 BST