Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Thu, 4 Sep 1997 12:33:56 +0100
Jason wrote: (3. September 1997 03:18)
(among other things):
I'm anxiously awaiting Bodvar's review of Zohar's work. After returning
to
your original comments, I'm starting to get the impression that our
interpretations of her work may be more similar that I had first
imagined. You (Bodvar) mentioned reading "The Quantum Self." Have you
had
a chance to explorer its follow-up, "The Quantum Society?" I see
many parallels to Pirsig's philosophy here(an experience that
is
alwaysexciting), and I particularly enjoyed Zohar's application of her
"Quantum" model at the
social level. I agree that Zohar never takes that final leap to leave
the
Subject/Object metaphysics entirely behind, but much of her
philosophy essentially arrives at MoQ conclusions just the same.
-------------------------------------------------
Bodvar replies: Here it is. I have only read her "Quantum Self", but I
take
your word for the "... Society" being equally good, and I will read it
at
the first occasion. Please also notice that the "review" was written
before
your last message which affirmed my "hunch", but I let it stand for you
to
see. I too hope that the little "shootout" has deepened our
understanding
of how many ways there are to Quality. This goes for me as well -
particularly for me!
:-)
--------------------------------------------------------
Danah Zohar has been mentioned several times, and I agree that her ideas
border on the Quality's, but they also differ, and the following is my
opinion about this relationship. I only know her "Quantum Self", but
that
one I have read thoroughly (earlier the same year that LILA's arrived)
and
my "Flamingo" paperback copy is covered with comments and underlinings -
of
approval. It is a marvellous book and my only criticism is that she is
within a hair's breadth to reach the quality breakthrough, but don't
take
the final step.
To start with the Foreword she says that: "....quantum physics shows us
that we cannot separate ourselves from our environment." and goes on
(p.1)
to put the blame of our alienation from the world (the mind/matter
dualism)
on Plato's philosophy "...with its distinction between the realm of
ideas
and the world of experience, and later drawing on Christianity's
denigration of the body in the favour of the soul......" This is fully
in
accordance with Pirsig's views in ZMM, even if he goes further back to
trace the birth of the subject/object rift. But her healing of the wound
takes a different direction from that of
Pirsig's, already on page 6 she suggests: "In this book I shall be
considering seriously the possibility that consciousness, like matter,
emerges from the world of quantum events: that the two though wholly
different from each other have a common mother in quantum reality...".
At this point one will notice that she makes a concession to the very
dualism she is about to redeem. How can the subjective (consciousness in
her vocabulary) and the objective (matter) have a common ancestor in
matter
- even if she calls it quantum reality? [Whoops. This very moment it
dawned on me why Jason and Doug emphasized the uniqueness of the
"Quantum
World" so much. Hmm !]. Well, you can pursue mind from here to eternity
and
never will it merge with matter ..... if your starting point is the
Mind/Matter Metaphysics itself! As I see it Danah Zohar never doubts the
SOM; she only looks for the place from where mind and matter leap forth
.....and/or unite.
"Only" does not mean that Zohar's contribution is small, I repeat that
this
is a splendid book and her effort carries her to the very brink of the
quality solution. Look for instance on page 180-1 where she turns to
values
and says: "...yet these values that we create in our most private and
subjective lives and through which we create a world ARE NOT THEMSELVES
SUBJECTIVE...etc.". It uncannily resembles the reflections that young
Phædrus of ZMM made to himself, and I ask again; is it possible to get
closer to the realization that value (quality) is the very foundation of
reality? She even goes on in the following pages to create a 'quantum
morals' and a nudge would have been enough for us today to have had a
Darwin/Wallace-like co-creation of the Quality Metaphysics!. But she
loses
the thread and never quite makes it out of subject/object-ivism. And how
could she? Before LILA the S/O view was reality itself. Even after ZMM I
(for one) had no clear vision how the Quality was to be interpreted.
Before her value venture she explores the Einstein-Bose condensate as
the
source of consciousness. This will take too long to explain in detail,
but
shortly it is a state of unity in which - for instance - the living
tissue
molecules of the neuron (brain) cell walls will take on quantum
mechanical
properties and give rise to the holistic quality we feel consciousness
possesses. The funny thing is that the neural cells of ALL living things
show the same properties, and animals aren't supposed to be "aware" in
the
human sense! ? Zohar realizes this and suggests that it indicates a
rudimentary consciousness, but the brain has to be above a critical mass
to
become fully "awake". No mocking from my side, and in any way does it
all
fit the quality notion perfectly.
One chapter is devoted to display the impossibilities of the
subject/object
world view and I don't disagree with one single thing in it. It is also
possibly true that the E-B condensate plays a role in the workings of
the
neural net, but it does NOT unite the subjective and the objective. I am
fully aware of the "quantum state" part of her argument, but there is
still
the fundamental difference between my inner experience,
and the outside world. The Einstein-Bose condensate is a state that
MATTER
can enter. The transition to the subjective point of view is another
reality plane (Notice please; Now I too speak from a SOM point of
view because Zohar argues from it).
My only "criticism" of Danah Zohar is that she sets out to mend a rift,
but
uses the rift's own tools, and that is - as Alan Watts says in his "Way
of
Zen" - as impossible as chewing one's own teeth. Such efforts to trace
mind-consciousness in the brain's innermost recesses are fascinating
(perhaps some of you LSers know the Hammeroff/Penrose "tubulae" theory
(Discover June 1994) and Francis Crick's "The Scientific Search for the
Soul" book on the subject). Great ideas and the best of brains and huge
efforts, but their final goal is in vain. And yet I highly recommend
Danah
Zohar, particularly so if one keep Pirsig's solution in mind (here it
would
have been tempting to continue with how the MOQ relates to this
particular
issue, but there will be time for that later on).
By the way Jason. She does keep the door open for artificial
intelligence,
look on page 69, even if I must add that this is not the way I believe
it
will come about. But that is another case.
PS. As told, while writing this I suddenly understood why the Quantum
World
was (wanted) added to the MOQ's level sequence. I almost kicked myself
for
not having seen this before, it could have saved us much bickering and
verbal missiles. We were all defending our understanding of quality.
Bodvar
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@geocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:55 CEST