From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 11:04:39 BST
Hi David
To add to that paper, I don't know if you've seen the Quantonics website
hosted by an ex Lila Squad member, Doug Renselle? If you're keen on
seeing the MOQ applied to quantum physics there may be some items of
interest in his extensive website.
Cheers
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk] On Behalf Of David MOREY
Sent: 01 September 2003 10:14
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Where things end.
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
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 - 11:09:51 BST