From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Fri Nov 18 2005 - 15:00:41 GMT
While we are on the subject of configuration of the MoQ: I would like to
propose yet another. This is actually an outgrowth of the MoQ I posed
earlier. I have been working with the version I presented earlier for about
15 years now and am very happy with it, thank you. But I think the way I
usually express it does not capture its full vitality. So here is another
way to spin it minus all the negative reaction to the received view of the
MoQ.
First comes Quality. Quality remains undefined. It is in principle
unknowable. If it is really "the way things are" then it is undefined
because:
1. We are equipped through our sense to apprehend only a faction of it.
2. Because of the uncertainty principle there is always something unknowable
built into whatever it is.
Quality is described if not defined in Pirsig's work. His areas of concern
influence the aspects of it that he describes and how he spins them. I have
complained in the past that this has led to neglect of other aspects of
Quality. Particularly the lack of emphasis on harmony that is central to
Taoism. But here I want to focus on this notion of the undefined quality of
Quality. Be saying that Quality is undefined we are saying that there is an
element of uncertainty at the core of the MoQ.
We can't know it for sure not matter how hard we try and all definitions
have to begin with: "It's kinda like..." So another way of spinning Quality
is to say, "It is kinda like the biggest probability field ever." That is
Quality is the set of everything that is possible.
If Quality is regarded as infinite possibility then it condenses into
probabilities. That is things that are likely to happen and things that
aren't. Since there is a probability, however unlikely, that anything can
happen; the present is where everything resolves into probabilities of 100%.
(Note here: the present is the only place where all probabilities are 100%.
The future and the past are both subject to varying degree of probability.)
We exist in a kind of temporal probability bubble with uncertain ahead and
behind us. Much more can be said about this but moving along...
When regarded in this way and strictly from the perspective of bipedal ape
descendants, the ability to approximate probability is of enormous
evolutionary advantage. One of the stated goals of science is to enhance our
ability to predict and control nature or: to understand and manipulate
probability. I have mentioned a couple of times previously that having a
temporal buffer aids us in this by helping us transcend that immediacy of
the present. It allows us to apprehend the dimension of time in the same way
the stereoscopic vision allows us to convert two dimensions into three.
I think I am jumping ahead a bit and skipping some steps but I never
underestimate my capacity to bore the reader so: from the standpoint of the
MoQ. Static quality relates to Quality as manifest in things or ideas whose
probabilities are well known or can be estimated with a high degree of
accuracy. Concepts such as chairness make sense because there is a high
probability that English speakers will be able agree on what constitutes a
chair. This probability of agreement increases with each new encounter with
objects that have chairlike Qualities.
Dynamic Quality then relates to objects and events whose probabilities are
not well know or to things that can change known or previously estimated
probabilities. This arises from the nature of Quality or possibility. Take
the chair which is highly static and add a hurricane. The structure and
action of the hurricane is fairly static in some sense but its path is
Dynamic as are Qualities it introduces into the objects in its path, say a
chair. If the chair is sitting in a room and the weather condition are held
within certain limits the chair's future is pretty static. But if a
hurricane rolls though it creates a very Dynamic environment in which the
future location and configuration of the chair are less predictable.
From the standpoint of the MoQ much can be constructed from this. Anal
sizing the four levels (which I continue to regard as a set of static
latches inhibiting the advancement of the MoQ) in this manner should prove
fruitful. However, one of the source of unfruitfulness is the desire on the
part of many here to jump straight into the 4th level with insufficient
attention to the others. I am on record as stating that the four levels in
no way discrete as Pirsig contends. But lets start with the first level for
a change.
We exist in a place and time where conditions are such that there is a great
diversity in the number of possible physical interactions. We live in Baby
Bear's bed were it is not too hard and not too soft. It is just right. It is
just right in the sense that physical systems are in the right balance and
the distribution of various elements is in the right proportion. But it is
also just right because they have been this way for a very very long time.
This make the environment of Planet Earth dynamic in its constitution but
static with respect to time.
Ok, I am outta time myself at the moment and I guess before going on with
this I would like a little reality check. The main point I am getting at is
that uncertainty and probability should be more fully appreciated and
explored within the MoQ. I am not really settled for example on whether DQ
is all about the change in probabilities or the number of possible
interactions of probability. Carbon is highly dynamic because of the number
of possible interactions it can have with other elements. Hurricanes are
dynamic because they alter existing probabilities...
Is anyone buying this?
Case
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 : Fri Nov 18 2005 - 15:07:33 GMT