From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 10:14:11 BST
Hi
Yes I have printed it off to have a look.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 9:04 PM
Subject: RE: MD Where things end.
> David (Morey)
>
> Have you seen Pirig's 1995 Paper linking quantum physics with the MoQ ?
> Subjects, Objects, Data and Values (SODV) - linked here
> http://www.psybertron.org/2003_05_01_archive.html#200362107
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of David MOREY
> Sent: 30 August 2003 15:05
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Where things end.
>
>
> Hi
>
> I think if you want to make progress with MoQ, which is also a sort of
> anti-metaphysics if you prefer, you could ask how it fits in with current
> particle physics theory. Quantum probability fields have a pretty
uncertain
> ontological status, I think this is due to their dynamic quality, where
> there is no interaction or event this uncertain status remains, it seems
> that only when an event occurs that you can point to any thing-like
> appearance, it is as if the interaction produces the interacting things
out
> of what we call probability fields, the smudgy nature of which seem to
> reflect both the nature of movement and dynamic quality
>
> DM
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <skutvik@online.no>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 8:13 AM
> Subject: RE: MD Where things end.
>
>
> > Hi Paul
> > I start here, as always we make no progress until you start to
> > summarize - an ability you have that I appreciate greatly.
> >
> > 28 Aug you wrote:
> >
> > > You refer to "inside the MOQ" and a "Quality Universe" as if it were
> > > somewhere other than where we already are, right here, right now, all
> > > around and inside. I think your "Metaphysics is Reality" belief is a
> > > major problem.
> >
> > Yes, I do. Existence have this tendency to change in accordance with
> > the range of view. Remember the example of a bug inside the sock?
> > After it being turned inside out, reality changed from a smelly confined
> > world to one of enormous vistas. It was the same yet changed
> > fundamentally.
> >
> > A more real example is the cosmology of the "ancient world" (Social
> > Reality) The "underworld" extended forever downwards and the sky
> > forever upwards, then came the Copernican Revolution (Intellectual
> > Reality) when these things were relativized; The same "here, right
> > now, all around and inside" yet changed fundamentally. If this
> > important phenomenon that Pirsig points to is a "problem" to you ...?
> >
> > > I think your logic goes:
> >
> > I printed this out and brought it with me on a walk to read it in
> > portions. Even one's own view looks a little unfamiliar seen through
> > another person's eyes ....
> >
> > > "If the MOQ includes "Dynamic Quality"
> > > and Dynamic Quality is outside of static intellectual patterns
> > > and the MOQ is reality itself
> > > then the MOQ is also outside of static intellectual patterns"
> >
> > ....but this is as close as it comes!!!
> >
> > > This also explains why you have come up with the SOLAQI argument. You
> > > extend the logic above in this way..
> >
> > Exactly!
> >
> > > "and because I can think about the MOQ (which is outside of static
> > > intellectual patterns) then static intellectual patterns cannot be
> > > synonymous with thoughts"
> >
> > Damn! This Is GOOD!
> >
> > > So to keep it all intact, you reduce mind to an era of "subject-object
> > > thinking" and create a fifth level
> >
> > Even if I have backed down on the 5th level to a rebel intellectual
> > pattern, this is exactly it.
> >
> > > or a "Quality Universe" in which
> > > the MOQ is not "merely a metaphysics" but has replaced SOM as "reality
> > > itself", just as you think the intellectual level once replaced the
> > > social level as "reality itself".
> >
> > GREAT!!!
> >
> > > What I think you fail to see is that the metaphysical term "Dynamic
> > > Quality" is a STATIC INTELLECTUAL REFERENCE to reality which is
> > > understood by direct everyday experience WITHOUT THOUGHTS OR WORDS.
> > > When you understand what it refers to you don't actually need the word
> > > anymore.
> >
> > Maybe I was dizzy from your perfect understanding of the SOLAQI,
> > but when it comes to this (critical) part ...hmmm. You see I'm not able
> > to understand that anyone can understand it as well as you do and
> > NOT "love" it ;-)
> >
> > From your above paragraph: " ....the metaphysical term DQ is a static
> > intellectual reference ...etc." Again you make it sound as if I have
> > overlooked some important point, and again it is a S/O difference, this
> > time between words and reality (words are thoughts as Wittgenstein
> > pointed out) You can make this S/O difference as subtle as you wish
> > ...and the objective part as ineffable as you wish, still it is part of
> > SOM's inexhaustible repertoire.
> >
> > In the SOL the Quality Idea started as a static intellectual pattern but
> > proved to be too dynamic for intellectual "safety" and it is now
> > suspended somewhere off-set to it.
> >
> > > "The Dynamic reality that goes beyond words is the constant focus of
> > > Zen teaching. Because of their habituation to a world of words,
> > > philosophers do not often understand Zen.
> >
> > I agree with this, Khoo told that Eastern tradition had their own S/O
> > tradition, but it did not develop into a SOM like in the West and is
> > what creates the Kiplingean Chasm (East is East ..etc.) but I don't
> > see the bearing on our discussion?
> >
> > > When philosophers have
> > > trouble understanding the distinction between static and Dynamic
> > > Quality it can be because they are trying to include and subordinate
> > > all Quality to thought patterns. The distinction between static and
> > > Dynamic quality is intended to block this." [Pirsig quoted in Ant
> > > McWatt's "Pirsig's MOQ"]
> >
> > Philosophers don't know the MOQ ...much less any Static/Dynamic
> > difference. Regrettably.
> >
> > > But, living in an everyday world of differentiated experience,
> > > "assertions of value" describes the ongoing process of differentiation
> > > in a way that fits empirical experience with meaning and purpose. So
> > > when we see that everyday differentiated experience can be
> > > fundamentally reduced to values, we can infer that the ineffable
> > > source of this experience is undifferentiated value, and refer to it
> > > as "Dynamic Quality". It becomes a workable term for something we know
> > > exists but can't define.
> >
> > Yes, yes, you don't need to convert me :-)
> >
> > > Bo:
> > > Finally. In a message (9 Aug.) in this thread you said:
> >
> > > > As mentioned to Scott, I think you need to be more clear on what > >
> > > "the S/O divide itself" refers to.
> > >
> > > I wielded my well-known "cultural" argument, but afterwards I thought:
> > > "Doesn't Paul understand the presentation that Pirsig gives of the SOM
> > > ...because this is what the S/O divide refers to.
> >
> > > Paul:
> > > The accuracy of my understanding is of no consequence to you, that
> > > "presentation" was from "1974 Pirsig", so according to you it is of no
> > > value.
> >
> > The description of the emergence of SOM (in ZMM) is forever valid.
> > But Paul, do you still find the "idealist" strategy useful? As said in
> this
> > message I am the first to admit that a fundamental change of outlook
> > fundamentally changes reality, and maybe the MOQ is a metaphysics
> > based on the premises that - FROM A SOM p.o.v. - everything is a
> > human invention/only in our minds ...whatever. But once the dice is
> > cast it is impossible to return saying that the MOQ is just a figment of
> > the mind as long as the mind/matter divide is invalid ..as a
> > metaphysics. The M is taken over by the MOQ. You who profess to
> > understand the SOLAQI, can't you understand this crucial point.
> >
> >
> > But anyway thanks Paul, you do a great job.
> >
> > Sincerely. Bo
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 10:23:13 BST