LS Re: Breakneck Kant 3


Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Sat, 28 Feb 1998 18:32:23 +0100


Bodvar Skutvik wrote:
>
> Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:39:43 +0000
> Donald T Palmgren wrote:
>
>
> > Could be. Personally I see this -ism partisianship as a result
> > of the Church of Reason -- the school system we are all churned
> through as
...
> Also, I have had my share of doubts regarding the viability of
> the Quality idea and have told about it. For you I will repeat the
> worst one. The rest of the Squad may take a break now :-).
> Pirsig claims that his metaphysics is a better
> map of reality than the Subject/Object one, but then; what is the
> reality he appeals to? (see footnote). It dawned on me that we were
> back at the Kantian "Ding an Sich". The ghostly "objective reality"
> from which we derive our subjective perception, and of what we can
> form so many theories? From a correspondent with a degree in physics
> I got a very useful tip. He suggested a relationship with the problem
> of switching between classical Newtonian physics and Einsteinian
> relativity. The thing is that one cannot go freely from one to the
> other except by way of a transformation process (Lorenz
> transformation). Relativity says that time and space is flexible.
> Space gets distorted and time gets warped in the vicinity of strong
> gravitational fields, but distorted and warped compared to what? What
> "straight" measuring rod does space curve compared to, and what
> "correct" clock does time deviate from?
>
> In physics,Relativity is applied as an effective tool; its
> calculations are faultless and no physicist give a damn
> about its weirdness, but among lay people Einstein is still
> questioned (I recently found a web page "Was Einstein right":
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2740/).What goes for relativity
> applies even more to Quantum physics; its claims are absolutely NUTS,
> but its calculations and forecasts holds up each time. Here I do not
> know if there is any "transformation" possible.
>
Bo,

As I have said in emails here before, P.A.M. Dirac verified the Lorentz
transformations for quantum mechanics. So, there is a transformation
there too. Here is the direct quote from my prior email to you:

"On the Hendrik Antoon Lorentz transformations: Prior to P.A.M. Dirac,
quantum mechanics did not appear to obey the Lorentz invariance
requirement. Dirac was able, however, to unify quantum mechanics and
relativity theory and produce an Lorentz-invariant system. Systems are
Lorentz invariant if their axioms remain unchanged across changes in
system coordinates. This is but one test of the goodness of a theory or
system. Note that Dirac was a prodigy, much like William James Sidis
(pp. 63-5 of Lila paperback) except Dirac did not hide from society."

Doug Renselle.
> This is exactly the problem of MOQ vs. SOM, no classical (SOM)
> trained casual passer-by can understand the quality concept without a
> "transformation" process possible. My hope is that someone will come
> up with something resembling the Lorenz equations. I have tried and
> my Interaction - Sensation -Emotion - Reason as a "classical"
> equivalent of Inorganic, Biological, Social and Intellect value show
> some promise, but I am waiting for a brainstorm that will complete
> it.
>
Bo,

I am working on the transformation you seek. So far, I have managed a
graphical or pictorial analogy. I just recently converted it into an
animation which you may wish to examine.

This animation starts with the classical SOM Subject and Object. They
are separated from one another. Separated the same way we perceive SOM
dichotomously separates them, with the SOM-imposed value (properties)
INSIDE the Subjects and Objects. The transformation goes from there up
to the point where Pirsig, in Lila, describes Subject and Object unified
by Value (the hot stove example) which is just making its transition to
Quality ("Values are more empirical, in fact, than subjects or objects."
p. 66 of the Lila hard bound edition). The end of the animation is SOQ,
or Subject-Object Quality instead of MoQ. It is not much of a stretch
to finish the transformation from there.

See the animation at:

http://www.quantonics.com/Level%204%20QTO%20SOM%20to%20sVo%20to%20SOQ.html

Hope this helps with your own mapping of the transformation.

Mtty,

Doug Renselle.
> Donny. I see that you really don't attack Pirsig and that it is some
> irony involved. Good, anyway I look forward to read your postings.
>
> Bo
>
> Footnote:
> Afterwards I found that Pirsig does NOT use the map metaphor
> in the sense that I do in my "The Quality Event" essay. He uses the
> map PROJECTION simile i.e. that around the pole the polar projection
> is better than an equatorial one. Well, it conveys much the same
> meaning.
>
>

-- 
"Now, we daily see what science is doing for us.  This could not be
unless it taught us something about reality; the aim of science is not
things themselves, as the dogmatists in their simplicity imagine, but
the relations between things; outside those relations there is no
reality knowable."

By Henri Poincaré, in 'Science and Hypothesis,' p. xxiv, translated from French in 1905 by J. Larmor, published 1952 by Dover Publications.

--
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 - 16:42:48 CEST