clark (clark@netsites.net)
Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:14:02 +0100
LS, Magnus, Diana, Jonathan, and Theo, and LS,
P 67 Bantam Hardback
"What the MOQ would do is take this separate category, Quality, and
show
how it contains within itself both subjects and objects. The MOQ would
show
how things become enormously more coherent--fabulously more
coherent--when
you start with an assumption that Quality is the primary empirical
reality
of the world..."
On page 66 is this passage:
"The MOQ not only passes the logical positivists' tests for
meaningfulness, it passes them the highest marks. The MOQ RESTATES the
empirical basis of logical positivism with more precision, more
inclusiveness, more explanatory power than it has previously had. It
says
that values are not outside of the experience that logical positivism
limits itself to. They are the essence of the experience. Values are
more
empirical, in fact, than subjects or objects.
This passage directly precedes the example of the hot stove in which
Pirsig states that the value lies between the stove and the oaths.
What I am trying to do, for myself, is to bring, to my own
satisfaction,
logical positivism under the umbrella of the MOQ. I think that this is
what
Pirsig is doing in this passage. If we drift off into mysticism to
explain
the operation of Quality through the history of the universe then you
have
presented me with a wholly unsatisfactory explanation of the MOQ. With
a
belief instead of an explanation. Pirsig, himself, said on page 63-64
that
between LP and Mysticism he considered Mysticism the more formidable
opponent.
I seem to have introduced some confusion into the ranks with my use of
the term sentient. My Random House unabridged defines sentience as
having
the power of perception by the senses, or, the conscious mind. The first
definition could apply to any living entity if one wanted to stretch it
far
enough to accommodate the plant kingdom. The foliage of the Mimosa tree
withdraws from a human touch. The second would start further up the
scale
of
evolution but still below the human level. My interpretation of the
meaning of the word is that it applies to the level of evolution in
which
learning by the senses is coupled with the ability to pass along
experience
through communication with language. I regard sentience as applying only
to
humanity. I can't think of another term to use to convey my meaning.
Diana, using this definition I would not regard pre-sentient (?)
Quality
as being sentient. I agree that there is obviously a force that impels
the
inorganic universe towards greater information content but I look upon
this
force as resulting from the complexity (freedom) of the physical
universe
to try any combination of possibilities within the limits of the
surrounding raw materials coupled with the energy available to drive the
reactions. Those reactions that are most difficult or require greater
energy input to achieve will also be more difficult to break down. This
will result in there always being a leading edge of Quality produced
steps
which will then be added to the static Quality store of experience. This
SQ
store of experience together with ambient conditions will then
predispose
the Dynamic Quality event toward selecting certain aspects of the
ambient
physical conditions to cause another quality event to occur. In this way
evolution proceeded toward greater and greater complexity. Nowhere do we
need to appeal to sentience (or conscious awareness) in this process. It
is
a result of the ambient conditions that were established because of the
rapidly falling energy level during the first moments after the Big
Bang.
The basic constituents of the atom and the forces that mediate the
interaction of those constituents are responsible for all that has
followed. In a sense, we could say that the falling energy level of the
universe (entropy) is responsible for the evolution of the universe
because
this falling energy level encouraged static latching to occur, which
predisposed another DQ event and so on.
As an aside, I do not agree with appealing to the quantum effect to
introduce uncertainty into the system. My understanding of the quantum
effect is that it is the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force
and
the electromagnetic force that are responsible for perpetuating the
structure of the elements. It is true that within the Planck time and
distance we do not know how to predict the moment to moment operation of
the three atomic regulating forces but what we can say, so far with
certainty, is that the results of these subatomic forces are entirely
predictable.
Magnus, you wrote:
'"Any constellation of only static patterns, completely void of dynamic
influence, is what I call non sentient. I.e. it has no free will and is
predictable in every way. It is the dynamic influence, the DQ, that
makes static patterns seem sentient, not the particular level as such."
My understanding of the MOQ leads me to think that we cannot have a
situation such as you describe above. I can think of no situation where
we
can have static quality without Dynamic Quality being predisposed by the
SQ. Again, my definition of sentience is irrelevant in this situation.
I heard on National Public Radio a couple of days ago that a pair of
Japanese physicists had detected a neutrino which seemed to have the
capability of changing states. This state changing was thought to
indicate
that the neutrino may have some mass. If this turns out to be so then
there
might be enough mass to close the universe. Any of you physicists have
any
insights on this. It may be old news that just got to Oklahoma but I
thought it was interesting.
Sorry for the rambling post. Just some thoughts. I think the current
question is interesting.
Bodvar,
I have been slowly been driven to the conclusion that your
interpretation
of the SOM as being the intellect of the MOQ is correct. I think that
SOM,
correctly subsumed into the MOQ is an inescapable fact.
I am still somewhat bemused by Pirsig's "Many Truths" idea. To my mind
this means that there some six or seven billion separate and distinct
sentient level MOQs out there. Can anyone clear this up for me? Ken.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST