LS Re: Objects' reality at various levels.


Dave Thomas (dlt44@ipa.net)
Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:39:12 +0100


Bo
> If what the quantum physicists observe, or put another way, if
> the physical has some reality beyond being inorganic value, i.e.
> approaches the "objectivity" of SOM, and that mind influences it, we
> are solidly back in mind/matter metaphysics. This I think Pirsig saw
> and is the reason he did not follow it up.
>
> Perhaps it is a showstopper, but Quality is a universe different
> from SOM's. Remember the relativity analogue?

I'm out of my element here in seeing the consequences. I understand the
relatively analogue, agree that Quality is the mother of all relativity, but
don't see why Pirsig would bring up Bohr and try to relate his work to Bohr's
if he was uncomfortable with where that comparison could or would lead. I also
don't see the threat to MoQ.

I know basically nothing about quantum mechanics but I've heard that the
biggie is that the very act of observing quanta seems to have an effect on
whether they appear or not. So the observer is actually effecting the data. Is
this not analogous to what naturalists have known about observations of wild
animals? Is this not what Pirsig says about anthropologists and Indians? I
thought one of the points of MoQ was just that. That every individual's
observation is relative to the static patterns that the observer brings with
him. Scientists cannot claim pure "objectivity" in so much as they bring
"subjectivity" to the table every time. But in MoQ those paradoxs disappear
because all there is is these four static patterns of values which interact
with each other by this set of rules and the potential that these patterns can
evolve by interaction with Dynamic Quality.

By using the Quality map we can develop a understanding of reality that
surpases or subsumes "objective" reality in so much as it acknowledges that
every reality has a by our old map a potentially "subjective" component. That
old "subjective" component is every much as real as the old "objective" so
much so it makes the division meaningless. Proof of that is the mere act of
observing a quanta or a wolf can effect the data. So we must subsume this
old pattern into this new four level pattern which acknowledges both
components are a potential part of any reality and must be treated under a new
set of rules to be understood. Or am I way off in left field?

Dave

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:25 CEST