From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Thu Jul 17 2003 - 04:39:41 BST
Platt,
> A bit off the subject, but since you often refer to mathematics as a kind
> of touchstone in your thinking, have you a theory as to why an
> intellectual level value like math has such great explanatory power of
> inorganic level values? It seems physics and astronomy are 98 percent
> math.
I have a theory, but I wouldn't want to try to defend it very strongly. It
is that, speaking mythically, God is an artist who creates Ideas
(mathematics of a much higher order than anything we have so far dreamed),
and then wants to see them come alive.
Another theory (not entirely different), is that what is, when it is not
observed, is in infinite potential, and when it is observed it is turned
into actuality through a filter of static intellectual patterns, including
the geometry of space, time, and mass. In other words, physics is actually
studying the mathematics of perception.
If you are wondering how seriously I take these theories, I guess I would
say they are mythopoetic extensions of what I do take seriously, which is
that space and time must be formed from within consciousness. I take this
seriously because
a) it is impossible for consciousness to come into existence within a
non-conscious spatiotemporal framework, and
b) the resolution of the many/one paradox requires that reality be
fundamentally non-temporal (strict spatiotemporality would not allow any
awareness of a "one", not even being aware of a single photon, since some
continuity is required to pass one from not being aware of the photon, to
being aware of it.)
There is actually some support for this kind of craziness in quantum
mechanics and especially in some quantum gravity theories (but note that I
am not a physicist, so take this with your customary suspicion.)
>
[Scott prev]> > But it is vital to seeing how the fourth and third levels
can be in
> > conflict. How one can think outside society's box.
>
> For me, thinking that worries about what society thinks is dominated by
> the social level. Thinking that cares less about what others think but
> follows "objective" standards like mathematics, logic, computer programs,
> scientific studies, etc. is dominated by intellectual values.
I agree about the "caring less", but I would not say that it is impossible
to think in that way about the social level. There is also detached thinking
about society that I would include under the fourth level, just as any other
detached thinking. In fact, that is pretty much what I mean by "detached",
that it simply observes and draws conclusions. In practice, it is rare to
find purely detached thinking when the object of thought is the social
level, since most of us have some social agenda or other. This is why I
think the social goal of fourth level thinking (if that makes sense) would
be, as Pirsig describes in Ch. 30, to put the social level to sleep, much as
the social level tries to put the biological level to sleep. Which it is,
except when we get sick or hungry or lustful, etc.
> Each of us, individually, decides whether or not any basic approach--
> mystical, spiritual, secular, materialist, idealist, dualist--meets his
> own sense of Quality. Hopefully, each of us stays open to the possibility
> that our sense of Quality can change, depending on one's life experiences.
> As a life experience, this forum qualifies. :-)
True, and true.
- Scott
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 : Thu Jul 17 2003 - 04:41:46 BST