Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Tue, 7 Jul 1998 04:15:17 +0100
Magnus, Jonathan, Horse and Squad!
The dialogue between Magnus and Jonathan has been very interesting,.
but I want to comment the last passage of Jonathan's message which
contains the gist of their conversation - of the MOQ vs SOM really.
> Now, I face something of a dilema. If there is "reality" distinct from
> our description/perception of it, that seems the same as Plato's
> "Truth". On the other hand, if our perception IS reality, then there is
> no absolute reality. We constantly strive to improve our understanding
> of reality. If there is an absolute reality, we may approach it. If not,
> we'll keep striving anyway. But we may never know the difference. This
> to me is what Pirsig is about - the search for betterment.
It reminded me of my greatest scare about the tenability of the Q
idea.
In my essay I had used the map metaphor. A metaphysics is a map of
reality - the MOQ a better version than the SOM, but then it struck
me that invoking the terrain idea was introducing (as you formulate
it) the Platonic TRUTH again. I saw no escape from it. It was Catch
22 plus all catches put together.
Then a Q correspondent with a doctorate in physics pointed to the
similarity with the transformation procedures when switching between
classical and relativistic physics. Relativity postulates that time
and space bend and warps, but if one - from a classicist point of
view - asks what straight measuring rod or absolute time these
deviations are measured against, an impossible situation occurs.
My friend said that there is no way you can go from one frame of
reference to the other without by way of the Lorentz equations.
Consequently there is no way the MOQ can be viewed from the SOM
without creating inconcistences. Magnus mentioned the "bootstrap"
problem which was once a great topic within physics (Capra says
something about it in his book "The Physics of Tao") I have two heavy
articles about it from "Scientific American" back in the sixties.
I think the simplest way of saying it is that reality i created by the
theory - by the metaphysics, but not in the SOM-subjective sense that
Glove hints to. Rather in the sense that the various Q-levels
constitute reality. Once reality was only Matter, then it was
Matter and Life. Next step was Matter, Life and Society
and by now it consists of the four value dimensions.
There is no "terrain" that our maps conforms to or deviates from, and
if a new value level is to manifest it will increase reality with one
hitherto unknown dimension. I have previously asked for a SOM-MOQ
"transformation" procedure. Doug Renselle worked out a video sequence
which is good visually, but it lacks - um - mathematical beauty.
I claim that the SOTAQI idea is a kind of transformation:
Subject/Object thinking IS the Q-Intellectual level.
So there is no difference between the uncertainty in Quantum
mech and the uncertainty Principle, between gravity and the theory
of that observation (Newton himself doubted the force model!). It's
all Intellectual patterns of value, but nonetheless real - the
highest patterns there are - but to ask if the Inorganic level (or
values) exist independent of Intellectual (theory) is the "straight"
rods which space is measured against again. It's selfdefeating.
Jonathan does in fact reach the same conclusion at the end of the
passage. But then he starts the same reasoning about time in today's
post :-)
HORSE
Is not satisfied with the CANGE VS PERMANENCE and find it A OR NOT
A-ish (mutually excluding). In an earlier post he said that it
re-introcduced the Mind/Matter quandary, but this last objection am I
not able to understand. Matter stable patterns and Mind volatile ones,
is that what you mean?
Also do I find the references to the ZMM in discussing the MOQ a
little confusing. Phaedrus had not fully worked out the Metaphysics of
Quality so even if the observations made are valid the formulations
are somewhat transition stage tainted. "Intellectualization lags
DQ temporally" is correct enough concerning the Intellectual level,
but matterization and biologization and socialization are also
Dynamic Quality fallouts and "lag" it (the stable patterns are not
Dynamic any more). I see from today's postings by Platt Holden and
Horse that an agreement is about to manifest itself regarding DQ/SQ's
relationship. Good.
Hope I find some heavy postings on this when I return.
Bo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST