Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Sun, 14 Jun 1998 04:08:53 +0100
Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:50:59 +0000
Ken Clark ended his message thus:
..........snip:
> 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.
Ken & Squad
Not that I am any censor who decides who has the correct
understanding of Pirsig's ideas, but the last two messages of yours
has impressed me greatly. Perhaps better not intervene unless I
derail your train of thoughts - no need to really - only a comment to
a passage in your message;
> My interpretation of the meaning of the word (sentient) 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
I treated this i my previous mail, but again: As I see it, Diana
meant the dynamic drift towards the ever freer better (or basically
AWAY from the limitations of the last static latch), while you see
"sentient" it in the traditional (SOM if you allow) sense.
I don't think we freely can switch between the two and if you see the
usefulness of the SOTAQI "transformation" you know that all
mind-indicating terms means the Intellectual level of the MOQ. On the
other hand, the backdrop of it all, that which makes an atom
"sensitive" to Inorganic values, and an amoeba "aware" of Biological
values, and us humans "conscious" of Intellectual values we must
find a term for. Could we try to call it Q-mind? I am reluctant to
use the DQ, because it is principally outside all patterns.
use the DQ, because it is principally outside all patterns.
Your own "..force that impels the inorganic universe toward greater
information content".... indicates that you recognize such a drift,
but why limit it to the inorganic universe? Why not let it cover all
existence as in the MOQ where the material universe merely is its
first manifestation? I think we have a candidate there.
Finally to the "many truths" riddle.
Too bad that Doug Renselle has left - this was his speciality. As I
see it it has to do with the basic postulate of the MOQ. As it leaves
the notion of an objective reality there principally is no TRUTH in
the - forgive me - traditional sense. There are the ever better
levels of experience, the truth/reality for an amoeba is different
from that of a human being, but it is a complete truth no foggy
version of the human reality. Our intellectual reality is marvellous,
but provisional.
However, I must add very quickly: The MOQ leaves the
subjective as well!!!!. What I said does not mean that reality is in
the mind (which was the only alternative in the SOM universe), and
for me personally it was the last masterstroke that made the Quality
idea such a revelation. So many "idealists" have postulated that
everything was in the mind, but it has only jammed us firmer in
the SOM deadlock. The Q -solution is something very different.
Bo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST