From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jul 17 2003 - 16:56:08 BST
Scott,
> 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.
Yes, that's my theory, too, the "mind of God" so to speak. All that
physicists have managed to find is what runs the space/time material show
lies outside the show.
> 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.
Yes. Interestingly a paradox: Intellectual patterns require time and space
to function, yet intellectual patterns (Einstein) have shown time and
space to be illusions.
> 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.)
Yes. Another paradox. Mind "sees" time and space as objects to be thought
about and measured. So mind cannot be in time and space. Otherwise, mind
would be part of what it sees, an impossibility. A camera cannot include
itself in the picture it takes.
And, another paradox. "One" is always a unit of a larger whole. Logic
forces one to assume a larger whole, a universe, that includes all within
it. Then the question arises, what's the "one universe" in? Multiverses?
What are they in? Ad infinitum.
> 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.)
Sooner or later we're all going to have to face the craziness of quantum
theory and the paradoxes of intellect. IMO, Quality to the rescue!
> [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.
> (Platt prev) 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.
I agree it's impossible to be completely detached if society is the object
of attention. I'm deeply suspicious of the conclusions of sociology and
the other "soft sciences." Newspapers are constantly reporting on some
study or other that completely contradicts a previous study. When
detachment is the criteria, math is probably the "purest" science. Physics
comes next. Biologists are more likely to look like ax grinders, and
sociologists can usually be taken with a grain of salt, unless you happen
to be one.
.
>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 is eternally separate from one another but never apart. So the
"apart" part is tough to put to sleep on a permanent basis. Intellect is
sleepless in social patterns whether it likes it or not.
Platt
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 - 16:54:23 BST