From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sun Jul 31 2005 - 18:02:38 BST
Hi MOQ gang
Been lurking for a while but now David M is back and with a little theory
that may supplement the MOQ. Shame I could not make the MOQ conference.
Hope there is one next year.
Here's my little theory for you to discuss if it is any use:
In line with the MOQ I take SQ to refer to aspects of the quality of our
experience that are somehow analysable, that we can identify as repeating,
that endure, that come around again, that we find popping up in different
places and times, in short patterns/order.
In line with the MOQ I take DQ to refer to aspects of the quality of our
experience that are not ordered and patterned, that are dynamic, perhaps
disordered, certainly unique, new, evolving, above all creative. DQ helps us
to explain the coming into being of SQ, the fact that new SQ emerges, that
SQ evolves and that new levels of SQ also emerge. DQ is like a gift being
bestowed on us. DQ has the capacity to take what is possible, from a vast
realm of what is possible, and select the specific and actual SQ that
constitutes our world. SQ therefore embodies duration, a sort of commitment
to take a particular path through the vast realm of all possible paths. As
such, SQ represents a withdrawal of DQ. SQ is left in the wake of DQ. DQ is
able to draw upon infinite resources to give direction to SQ. In contrast SQ
'embodies', it takes on shape, it endures for a while, it repeats, it has
constancy, order, it is reliable compared to the creativity, profligacy, and
sometimes destructiveness of DQ I think the above agrees reasonably with the
MOQ, at least a possible interpretation. Here's my new suggestion: We pretty
clearly experience DQ & SQ. We also suppose that DQ & SQ goes on
'interacting' even if not being experienced by a human being, as we can
imagine a time in cosmic history before human beings, when a lot of SQ
required for human beings was laid down. I would like to talk about how we
are able to reach some of these conclusions. I think as human beings we
experience SQ directly in 2 different realms and we can postulate 2
different realms that we do not experience directly.
The first realm I wish to talk about is the p-realm. This is the ordinary
shared realm of perceived SQ. This realm is the one we talk about being full
of objects in SOM, or SQ in MOQ. It is a shared realm. We can
identify/create named patterns such as chairs and tables, we can agree on
these patterns and confirm that we are picking out the same patterns in the
shared p-realm of perception.
The p-realm would not really be a very rich experience if it was not for the
i-realm. This is a private realm. It is the realm that if full of all those
aspects of experience that we do not share with others. It is the
individual-realm in this sense. In this realm I possess those patterns and
forms of analysis that enable me to make sense of the p-realm. The p-realm
is just a flux until we cut it up as Pirsig says. The patterns we use to cut
up the p-realm are contained in the i-realm.
Both realms fall within our experience but we can distinguish them as above.
One we share with others directly the other is shared only indirectly. When
you are born your parents, by pointing and making noises get you to develop
i-realm patterns and SQ so that you can understand the p-realm like they do.
"Ug ug ug, this is a teddy bear, can you see the teddy bear dancing?" You
learn the patterns of teddy bear and dancing, the p-realm sight and sound
patterns that go together to make up the pattern teddy bear. Without these
notions in your i-realm you could not identify anything that was a teddy
bear. There would be no use asking an alien to find the teddy bear in your
toy box. Hence via language and culture we can create and share i-realm
patterns and SQ. To describe a cultural institution like government you will
need to describe both the p-realm patterns you can point at like the
Whitehouse, and signed documents, but also i-realm SQ such as notions about
voting and democracy.
The other realm I think we all take for granted but do not experience
directly is the w-realm. Imagine looking at a ball. You experience it in the
p-realm as understood by your i-realm notions about balls, games, gravity,
motion, etc. You can talk to someone else about the ball that you can both
see or kick in the p-realm, using shared SQ notions 'contained' in both your
separate i-realms. Notions of kicking, rolling, how ball's behave. Now if
someone takes the ball away or you both leave the room you no longer
experience it in the p-realm together. But you continue to think that the
ball exists, as you know that it could come back any minute. You assume that
p-realm patterns are able to move out of your p-realm (often shared p-realm)
into a really existing realm that goes beyond the limited scope of your
individual (but often shared) p-realm. Of course, this is simply the world.
We take the world as existing simply because p-realm SQ can absent
themselves from the p-realm and then return to the p-realm. For example, my
friend leaves the room. I put the ball in a box. My friend returns and
guesses that I have hidden the ball. Neither of us can experience/see it in
the p-realm. We both make the intelligent assumption that the ball still
exists in the w-realm.
The w-realm simply transcends the extent of the p-realm, even the extended
p-realm that includes both what I may be perceiving or what any human or
even animal is perceiving. By the way I take perceiving to have a possible
range of levels where perceiving means being changed in one's SQ by the
existence of other SQ. We notice other SQ by being changed by it, and we
value those changes as having high or low quality. And whilst the ball is
absent from our shared p-realm but present in the overall transcendent but
partially immanent w-realm, knowledge of it (that it is in the box) can
exist in the i-realm, as I know where it is hidden and my friend does not.
The next realm is an even more indirect realm of SQ. This is the I-realm
(big I realm) of the infinite. This is realm of all possible SQ. Here there
are humans with three hands and cat's that talk, etc. Mathematics explores
much of the SQ in this realm and so does fiction. But SQ in this realm can
enter all the other realms. From a time when humans only existed in the
I-realm they have escaped and come to exist in all the other realms. If I
imagine the design of a new boat I take something from the I-realm and bring
into the i-realm. If I discuss the design with you it enters our shared
i-realms. If we draw up plans there can be experience by anyone else in the
p-realm, and if we build it the SQ of the boat enters the p-realm as a boat
and not just a design.
That's my scheme. It improves on SOM because we are talking about SQ not
object That can only exist in the w-realm and p-realm. For us SQ has 4
realms to move around in.
What about DQ? To my mind DQ has a lot to do with the way SQ moves around
these 4 realms.
In the beginning there was only SQ in the I-realm. Then DQ pours it into the
w-realm. Some how the p-realm gets going so that SQ in the w-realm starts to
perceive the separateness/differentiation of SQ in the w-realm. Such
perception is all about the interaction of SQ in the p-realm. So this is how
the i-realm gets going and is able to bring the influence of i-realm SQ into
the play of all the other SQ. Before the i-realm all SQ entered the w-realm
directly from the I-realm. Once the i-realm comes along, SQ can enter the
w-realm via the i-realm -as in designing a new boat. DQ is at work with all
these movements and creations of SQ. I think all SQ can be described as
existing in at least one realm and sometimes all 4 realms. An idea may be in
I-realm undiscovered. It may enter the i-realm of an individual. It may be
shared in the p-realm. Or a five legged horse may exist on mars and be in
the I-realm and w-realm but not yet in the human p-realm or i-realm of any
individual.
Of course the p-realm is the empirical realm but as we know
experience goes beyond what is simply empirical.
I think most metaphysics will fit this scheme. MOQ implies SQ is real in all
these
realms, all other philosophies deny the reality of SQ in at least one of
these realms
such as idealism or materialism or even pragmatism. All experience is real
but all
SQ is not in any empirical or ideal realm exclusively.
That's my proposal. What does the gang think?
Regards
David M
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 31 2005 - 18:37:13 BST