Hi Diana 'n' Squad
> I've been trying to find a solution to the
> discontinuity-of-matter-at-the-quantum-level platypus. Pirsig's
> statement that matter is stable inorganic patterns of value might be
> correct MoQ but I think we need a little more explanation than that to
> keep the physicists happy. However obviously this is a rather
> far-reaching question and possibly a trifle over-ambitious at this
> stage;)
Is this one of those six impossible things to do before breakfast, then you can eat
at Milliways - the Restaurant at the End of the Universe :)
OK - seriously now!
How much of the above problem is to do with the ability to express such a
concept in the language of words - as opposed to the language of mathematics.
Wasn't this the problem Pirsig spoke about at the Einstein meets Magritte
comference some time back. The same one that Bohr wrestled with and which
Heisenberg virtually declared a non-problem - or at least a problem of language
not of Quantum mechanics. Of course if you're saying that via the MoQ we may
now have the means to express this problem with language then that's a different
matter as it MAY be a slightly easier as a linguistics problem.
> IMO the problem arises from the way LILA is written. Because it's woven
> into a novel it's difficult to point to a clear structure. When you read
> it from cover to cover it seems beautifully intuitive but then when you
> try and compare sections from different chapters the relationship isn't
> always obvious.
> While I'm not criticizing Pirsig's methods, if the MoQ is to be taken
> seriously somebody has to come along and sort it out into some kind of
> classical order.
Apologies if I appear obtuse but do you mean Lila or the MoQ. If you mean Lila
then I've been going through the book making notes to try and do some of the
above. I dropped it a while ago but will pick it up again in a couple of weeks as
soon as I get the hang of my new job. If you mean the MoQ then it will mean
more than 'somebody'.
> At the moment one problem is that Pirsig's basic split - Dynamic vs
> Static - isn't watertight. I don't mean to bring it up again right now,
> but there are at least four different definitions of this flying around
> the group at the moment. It may be that Pirsig didn't explain it well or
> it may be that we're just not getting it. At any rate with this still in
> disarray the MoQ lacks a very basic criteria for a metaphysics, namely
> internal consistency. Of course, having an internally consistent theory
> proves nothing at all, but if we can't even manage that then it's
> hopeless.
The main problem with just discussing a problem is that there is no focus except
the problem under discussion and pretty soon the focus drifts as side issues
arise. We've seen this in the past with PROGRAM discussions. Part of the
problem is that LS members also want to discuss subjects which either spin off
from the subject under discussion or have no real interest in the current
PROGRAM subject and want to talk about other things in parallel.
Suggestion: Start another mailing list which members can subscribe and
unsubscribe to easily which is solely for the PROGRAM discussions. This should
be unmoderated although regulated by the members who are interested in the
current PROGRAM. The length of time needed for discussion can be open-ended.
When there seems to be some sort of agreement this should be spelled out and
discussed further until at least a majority are happy with the result. The resulting
consensus is published on the Web Site.
OK it adds an amount of complication and requires an adequate number of
contributors and the willingness to listen to and evaluate fairly others opinions and
reasoning. This seems to have been a problem in the past where everyone wants
to talk and no-one is listening (I'm not excluding myself here). An idea springs to
mind that an approach to the PROGRAM discussion could be to tackle the
subject as a related thought experiment rather than attacking it head on.
Anyone got any other ideas?
> Externally the MoQ has an even harder task ahead: it has to explain the
> nature of consciousness, nothing less. Pirsig has already given us the
> idea that consciousness is value, but that's only a starting point. With
> a fully realized MoQ we should be able to explain quantum phenomena,
> artificial intelligence, even the nature of the self.
As well as producing a practical MORAL philosophy. This has not been
discussed at all well in the past and is something that will take a great deal of
thought, after all the book we seem to discuss most is called Lila - An Inquiry into
Morals. The MoQ has been touted as pretty much a Theory of Everything (I'm not
being sarcastic) but in line with what you say above, we have to find a way of
forming some sort of concensus AND publishing it.
> Which brings me to the point of this post, which is to raise the
> question of what the next PROGRAM should be.
How about the subject that was brought up a while back:
What is Dynamic Quality
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:34 BST