Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Mon, 27 Jul 1998 14:55:22 +0100
Dear Lila Squad.
A warm welcome to the newcomers who have delivered their
"cards" at the "Squad" page.
Upon returning to a overflowing mailbox it is difficult to enter the
discussion along any particular thread, so I will try to cover the
development over the last weeks - as my interest goes.
MAGNUS BERG & JONATHAN MARDER ended their debate over the
reality of the Q-levels below Intellect in mutual exhaustion. The
question: "Are patterns really out there" is so central to the
Q-idea that I will try to revive it. Jonathan did not catch the moral
of my Classic-/New Physics story, and as the same riddle (in a
different guise) appeared in
HORSE's & PLATT HOLDEN's debate over fuzzy vs crisp logic allow me
another go at it. The heart of the matter is that it seems like SOM
is more fundamental than the MOQ. Jonathan said that everything
is Intellectual patterns which sounds uncannily like good old "...in
the mind only" and Platt maintains that fuzzy logic only can be seen
as such from a crisp non-fuzzy SOMish point of view.
I told (for the nth time) of the problem of changing between the
Newtonian and Einsteinian frames of reference; that a transformation
is necessary, something which poses no problem until one tries to
explain relativity in language which necessarily is rooted in
tradition. Warped space and dilated time can only be
understood from "straight" space and "absolute" time. (this goes for
the Quantum Mech. weirdness even more).
The MOQ is a General Metaphysics (or Quality Mechanics!)
and even if Pirsig tried to make a smooth transition there is a gap
to be jumped: A transformation is needed, and in my usual modest
style I claim that the SOTAQI idea is a sort of SOM-MOQ
"equation" and I can't understand that Horse has problems
accepting it after writing like he did in his exchange with Platt.
And Platt who was the originator of this idea when he launched
the Quality as a possible next moral step, how can he see the
fuzzy/binary thing as a problem? (Except for having a good time
whipping (a) Horse :-))
The SOTAQI says that subject-object thinking is the Q-Intellect: the
highest moral level (within the DQ ) while subject-object METAPHYSICS
(the claim to be all of reality) is deeply wrong! Translated into the
Newton-Einstein context it can be said that classical physics is the
necessary foundation for the "new physics" (Relativity, Quantum) and
still valid at "normal" conditions, but once (upon a time) it claimed
to be universal and that was all wrong. The same goes for geometry
where classical Euclid has become a subset within the general
geometry.
Jonathan's realization that everything is InPoV stems from trying to
evaluate the MOQ from a "classic" SOM point of view, as does Platt's
refutation of the fuzziness idea. There has now been created a wider
context in metaphysics as it once was in physics, but common wisdom
(Western i should say) lags behind.
The oldies will remember the uproar that Relativity once created.
The disturbance was only exceeded by the Quantum dispute which raged
in science journals in the seventies and eighties until it became
possible to perform the (hitherto thought) ERP experiment. The
relativity shock has abated and the Quantum weirdness is in the
process of becoming household words.
But can a world view be tested? Can a theorem be formulated that
makes it possible to put the MOQ and SOM "predictions" up against
each other and can an equivalent to the Michelson-Morley or Aspect
experiment be set up? l really don't know. The said experiments WERE
in a way metaphysical tests too.
GLOVE has sent me a remarkable "graphic" version of the Q
development which he calls a "Wimple Model". Regrettably I am
not able to fully evaluate it, but as far as I can follow the
reasoning it makes sense; perhaps plenty sense to those so
inclined. Could it be that we have the beginning of theorem here?
He will possibly publish it at the Forum Page when he has it fully
developed.
DONALD PALMGREN revealed a deep understanding of the Q tenets
when he jumped on Horse's assertion that thoughts were Q-Intellect.
This however proved to be false alarm. It was the "thoughts" (as
such) that led Donny (and me) to interpret it as SOM's mind or
consciousness. Horse's memory/PRA model is OK if the said term is
removed and only "ideas" retained (ideas are always about something,
while "thoughts" has this mind/consciousness ring. Still Donny's
vigilance is important and he correctly put the finger upon the out
there/in here notion. Also on
KEN CLARK's "physical universe" and its energetics as the creator of
Quality - and the Big Bang as the final word about "creation"!.
Possibly this will make it through to Ken's literal mind now that he
is rested from weeks "on the road" :-). I see from Ken's later
exchange with Keith that he begins to see.
MAGGIE HETTINGER has - like Donny - a deep understanding of the
Social level's "nature". This is so to say the acid test
of one's MOQ . Jonathan's "nazism as perversion" show how difficult
it is to come to grips with its immense force.
KEITH GILLETTE's four-hour essay was great reading and I
accept his definition of the DQ/SQ split as I do the ones of
ANTHONY MCWATT,
MARTIN STRIZ,
NICK ADAMS,
MICHAEL DARLING,
ZAINE RIDLING,
NICHOLAS SZEKERES and all who have contributed. Like
SOJOURNER I am "burned out" on this issue, definitions are not DQ
by definition. I also liked his answer to Jonathan's rather
traditional Ghandi, and would have liked S. to publish (at the Forum)
anything he has written.
DONALD S ROSENOW delivered a most remarkable note and I
wonder why it evoked so little response. Perhaps because he asked
the embarrassing question: Is the MOQ a religion or what, and who are
cast in the various disciple roles? First, welcome Donald, you are
definitely to come out of lurking mode, this was a most
interesting slant (provided you are not joking?). Pirsig calls the
Quality idea a metaphysics. That sounds inconspicuously and
academically enough, but the thing is that no-one has ever done
anything like it before (the transformation problems shows the
enormity), and it will necessarily have reverberations at all walks
of life; the one we call religion too (the Semitic based ones that
is. See Donny's quotation from Joseph Campbell's writings). IMHO the
MOQ is a Westernized version of Eastern ideas and as there are no
Messiahs or canonization, we will not have a Paul, John -- or Judas.
ANDREW RUSSELL mentioned Ken Wilber as a useful lens to see the MOQ
through. Agreed - conditionally. I know his "Up from Eden" and it is
as close as it is possible to come to the MOQ ....and miss it. It
is a subtle thing, but the spiritual part is crucial. Wilber's
idea of a material universe getting spiritualized is foreign to the
MOQ. The matter-mind division is gone; everything is "spiritual"
or nothing is! I like the first, but am not greatly offended by the
latter, it has no meaning in a Q context. (NB The moral/value aspect
that Platt talks about covers the same objection from a different
angle. The last post from Andy expands his Wilber understanding, but
basically I maintain my sentence).
DIANA MCPARTLIN has created a splendid new lay-out for the MOQ
site. She said that she did not want the LS to become a clique, and
it has grown beyond that size already, but I am proud of the high
level of discussion that is going on in this group - and also a
little reluctant to join the newsgroup (sci.philosophy.meta) that
Horse speaks about and start all over again.
(I understand that my "Bo" pet name has a "startling" sound in
English so I'll use the full version from now on).
Bodvar.
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:29 CEST