LS Re: Catches


Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Sat, 7 Feb 1998 06:23:07 +0100


Platt Holden wrote:
>
> Doug Renselle wrote:
>
> This is great! Absolutely! We ARE seeing eye-to-eye! You describe
> well and concisely differences twixt classical- and neo-scientists.
>
> I have not read William James. I assume that if Pirsig says he and
> James are on the same 'wavelength' then I can defer that in favor of
> other things like this wonderful Lila Squad.
>
> You affirmed a deferral strategy in the James quote above.
>
> Yes, James' conscious field appears akin to DQ. My only reservation
> here is that the word 'conscious' probably is human centric. We do not
> know if multiversal 'consciousness' is generic. If consciousness (which
> is yet undefined, I believe) corresponds to that which prefers a loop
> something like this (note that a loop is a 'sort of' circle, and thus a
> 'sort of' wavefunction):
>
> while dynamically interrelating all existing patterns
> do loop
> emerge patterns
> change patterns
> end loop
> end while
>
> I hope your book will explain loops and wave functions so someone like me
> who lacks context of such matters can get a better grip on the concepts
> involved. As of now, this old liberal arts major is pretty much out of the
> loop quantum-wise.
>
> Where patterns scale from the simplest to the most complex, then
> 'consciousness' is a metaphor of DQ. This requires as I conjectured
> before that the simplest pattern (wavefunction, quantum system,
> whatever) must be 'aware.' I believe this is true. I think the
> particle (wavefunction) accelerators demonstrate this, when you take off
> your SOM hat and put on your MoQ hat.
>
> I agree completely!
>
> Note that the above loop is consistent with the process Pirsig describes
> about the genesis of an object, then a subject, then awareness, and
> subsequent Quality Events, etc.
>
> Thanks for the affirmation on quantum science. I cannot explain this to
> you, but I somehow KNOW that the Mechanics of Quanta and the Metaphysics
> of Quality are duals. When I test concepts by trying them in each of
> the two MoQs, the concepts work. So quantum science is one of the few
> (that I know of) benchmarks we have for Pirsig's MoQ.
>
> This suggests to me that just as the discovery of the quantum established a
> new level below the classical/inorganic, the discovery by Pirsig of
> omnipresent Quality establishes a new level above rational/intellectual
> (except Artists and mystics discovered and established this higher,
> transcendent level centuries ago).
>
> In SOMese there are no single words that capture essentially the core
> realities of the two MoQs. At least I have not been able to find them.
> For my book, I invented a new word which captures this idea. I will
> share it when the book finally gets published. The core realities are
> best encapsulated by the following terms I have found: Gestalt,
> syncretize, interpenetrate, commingle, unify, integrate, etc. Sadly, no
> one of these words, nor all taken together is able to capture the core
> realities of the two MoQs.
>
> I like "omnipresent" and "transcendent unity." But I agree no words can
> capture core reality, which loops us back to the original Catch 32.
>
> MoQuality core reality: You are in It and It is in You. Q=SQiDQ.
> MoQuanta core reality: Quantum quality is waves (qwfs) in VES.
>
> (The small 'i' in SQiDQ is to show interpenetration both/and commingling
> of SQ and DQ. 'qwf' is a quantum wavefunction. VES is vacuum energy
> space. BTW, compare the above core realities to the core reality of
> SOM.)
>
> Your quote from William James above about the conscious field is very
> close to the two MoQs' core realities. James (IMO) is saying that our
> consciousness is ubiquitous and interconnected.
>
> But more than that is ubiquitous and interconnected: our whole beings!
> SOM says a being's mind stops at the brain case and is connected to the
> separable rest of reality via sensory peripherals. This is the
> classical reductionist view.
>
> The two MoQs say that our patterns co- and inter-modulate stasis and are
> co- and inter-modulated by dynamis (using Hugo's more general terms for
> SQ and DQ). Co- and inter-modulation appears in the loop above as
> 'change' and 'interrelating.'
>
> Now back to the original issue on Catch 32.
>
> The original Catch 32 is a SOM Catch. One clue is the word 'part.'
> 'Part' in the Catch is used to imply inclusion, but as used it carries
> the SOM legacy of 'included, but still separate.'
>
> But when you look at words themselves, when they are in 'consciousness,'
> they gain the ability to intermodulate if we allow them to.
>
> Let's try again:
>
> Catch 32: MoQ patterns cannot completely describe reality because the
> MoQ patterns we use to describe reality commingle and intermodulate the
> reality we're trying to describe.
>
> I agree with this.
>
> I think this gets a little bit closer, but it still needs a lot more
> thought.
>
> Is this better? Is MoQ helping us move closer to a better Catch 32?
>
> Yes, but I also think the original Catch 32 is equally expressive of the
> MoQ without using MoQ lingo. Any time you recognize paradoxes inherent in
> SOM rationality you take a step into MoQ-Land.
>
> Vastly oversimplifying, I see qwfs and MoQ patterns as tiny instances of
> reality. As the poets have said, when you look at a snowflake or a drop
> of water, you can see the multiverse. When you listen to Bach's 30
> Goldberg Variations, you can hear the whole of the DNA. And so on...
>
> Each of us is...an instance...of reality...
>
> Can we describe us? Pirsig says, "Yes, MoQ does, but" only
> incompletely. As you averred, Platt, Kurt Goedel knew this too. Isn't
> it interesting that to Pirsig it is the BIG POSITIVE. To Goedel it
> is/was the BIG NEGATIVE.
>
> Excellent point. In fact, permit me to thank you again for another great
> eye-opening post!
>
> Platt
>
> Catch 38: Clinton can't tell the truth until he finds out what he has to
> lie about.
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>

Platt, Doug,

Some advice:

                        If it ain't simple, it ain't the MoQ

Diana

--
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 - 16:42:47 CEST