Hi everyone
Common mistakes
First to equate DQ with present experience is to say that DQ is all experience. This denys the experience of static quality.
Also I suspect this is more evidence of the subject-object metaphysics raising its head again. "All present experience", what does that mean? It means the part of the reality that I can't identify because it is what is happening now, in other words me - the subject.
And. Don't get me wrong I think all this quantum stuff is fascinating but I've yet to see anyone post anything that shows the MoQ provides a clearer explanation of quantum phenomena than any other theory. All I can see anyone doing in this list is pasting MoQ words onto Quantum terms. Sure you can say dynamic is possibility, but a. where is your reasoning behind that? and b. what exactly does that tell us about anything that we didn't already know?
Diana
> << >"If DQ is the "cutting edge of experience" that contains all the "infinite
> possibilities of the universe", then we are attempting to define and
> limit DQ if we assign a finite purpose to the universe. ..."
>
>
> Jonathan responds:
> <<"I think that it isn't appropriate to say DQ "contains" anything. DQ
> isn't a container. It is a driving force. Things are made possible by a
> combination of DQ and static patterns which facilitate realization."<<
>
> Jonathan, I am a lazy typist. On 254 of ZMM, Pirsig writes "Romantic Q is the
> cutting edge of experience." He then goes on to say pretty much what you
> did....."The leading edge is where all the action is. The leading edge
> contains all the infinite possibilities of the future." Quite similar to my
> snippet but clearer when not abbreviated. But I tend to agree with your
> criticism on the word "containing" when applied to the infinite and the
> indefinite. When "something" contains "everything", does it contain itself?
> And if so , are we any closer to defining?........Nope.
>
> The point of my admittedly "stuck" posting concurs with your
> observation......We can't define the infinite indefinite.....and most
> attempts, even Pirsig's , limit it. But to not attempt probably limits it
> too!
>
>
> Jonathan also says:
> << "It strikes me that FUTURE is the container of all possibilities, while
> PAST is the container of realised possibilities. PRESENT is dynamic
> realisation. This is the sharp cutting edge of our common experience.
> It's only when we get down to the quantum scale that the sharp edge
> starts to look dull. That means that the present is more than
> infinitesimal, but diffuses along the time axis." >>
>
> Didn't you also post some intriguing observations on time flow and the 2nd law
> of Thermodynamics last month? Though I didn't respond, I continue to be
> fascinated by DQ and Now and time. In my comments to Diana yesterday, I
> mentioned the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum theory. Although I
> wouldn't argue for or against it.....I think you are much more qualified than
> I am.........the rumor is that the elite Quantum Cosmologists take this
> position very , very seriously.
>
> As I understand this interpretation, time doesn't exist at all.......just an
> infinite array of universes. Everything that can happen does happen. In this
> case, value becomes equated not with "possibilities" , but with
> "probabilities."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make a name for yourself - Freemail@hongkong.com
Hongkong.com Ltd. http://freemail.hongkong.com
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 - 16:02:35 BST