From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Dec 29 2003 - 18:53:17 GMT
David M. and Humanity
28 Dec. you wrote:
> Bo:Mankind from the earliest age looked for explanations
> of origin and destination, and tried to manipulate the force that
> controlled their fate. This is the origin of "religion" and developed
> into complex mythologies.
> DM: This is entirely how I see it from Nietzsche of course.
Good. Have we ever discussed a possible Nietzsche-Pirsig
connection? It would have been interesting, it's ages since I read
(about) him, but remember that I saw some likeness when ZMM
was new.
> Are we
> now on for a religion that embraces transcience and becoming?
You mean what role the MOQ is supposed to play? Pirsig makes it
sound as if it's a philosophical adjustment, but it is really ...well
...revolution.
> Bo: One may say that everything has a dynamic moment before
> > manifesting at the respective level, that - for instance - every
> > inorganic pattern has a fleeting moment before it "becomes" a
> > photon, but this springs from a the fallacy of believing that
> > "substance" is something different from inorganic value.
> DM:Please explain. I would agree with "One may say that everything
> has a dynamic moment before ...
> > > manifesting at the respective level, that - for instance - every
> > > inorganic pattern has a fleeting moment before it "becomes" a
> > > photon",
> in as far quantum physics has to accept probability
> fields and give up mechanics it is having to deal with DQ I would
> suggest. Unless we are limiting DQ to the provision of new SQ.
The reason for my saying so ...and the next that it is based on a
misunderstanding ... is that I see it as unnecessary to postulate a
Q event at each static level (I have a vague recollection that Pirsig
has said something to that effect recently).
Regarding quantum weirdness. The inorganic level has a special
position because it borders on to the dynamic void at its "lower"
end .. as intellect does at its "upper" ...consequently its patterns
recede into a region where they becomes extremely "subtle". If
this explains the quantum paradoxes I don't know.
> I do not in my assumptions.
> DQ is associated with freedom in my mind. The inorganic levels of
> photons/particles/atoms/molecules contain different levels of freedom moving
> from more freedom to less freedom (in the form of mass and combinability).
Even so quantum theory delivers correct answers so there is no
irregularity if that is what you mean by freedom, while there IS a
certain ambiguity (Pirsig calls it) with the more complex elements,
for instance carbon's chemical valences.
> Hence I see the inorganic levels as moving from almost pure DQ/freedom to
> more SQ/constriction and less DQ/freedom.
Hmm, well as said it may not be so and out of the inorganic level
the rule seems to be from from stability towards instability. The
simplest organisms are most resilient while the more complex are
more vulnerable, yet the human (mammal) organism was needed
for the social development. Likewise, when the social level was
established its basic patterns are the most stable ones, while the
immensely complex structure called a "state" is easily toppled,
yet necessary for the intellectual development (the Greek City
state IMO). If this matches your "freedom" scheme ???
> As for
> substance/physicalism/matter these to me are myths.
THAT we agree about!
> Bo:The value of the subject/object distinction is an enormous one that
> > raised mankind from the mythological era (social level) and a
> > prerequisite for science.
> DM: I agree with this in so far as we then go on to say that the MOQ
> (a new awareness of DQ/Being/Be(com)ing/ i.e everything that has
> been ignored and reduced in the concept of the subject) is then
> required to deal with the inadequacies of SOM as pointed out by
> Heidegger and then later Pirsig. So that the fullness of experience
> is available to us, all quality, not just quantity and objective
> reality, and the distinction of SOM is seen as useful but deeply
> problematic.
Yes, the MOQ is absolutely about dealing with SOM's
inadequacies - the chief one that of posing as a metaphysics (that
the S/O divide is the ultimate reality) and once the ''M' is taken over
by the MOQ the value of the subject/object divide is well worth
retaining.
Heidegger? Do you know the British writer/thinker Colin Wilson?
He was once my favourite and much occupied by Husserl,
Heidegger and Phenomenology.
> My journey to DQ certainly began with my science
> studies and my doubts about materialism and physicalism.
A similar experience as Phaedrus of ZMM ..the one that made him
drop out of school?
Sincerely.
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 29 2003 - 19:47:02 GMT