From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sat Jan 10 2004 - 08:04:47 GMT
All MOQ Discuss!
8 Jan. David M. wrote:
> Here's a post from the Arthur M Young
> discussion group that I thought might be of interest.
> It seems to indicate how free energy of atoms
> is linked to both space and uncertainty, & that
> matter is linked to the constraint of energy in space.
> Perhaps telling usa something about the DQ/SQ relationship.
Interesting stuff, but I feel we are barking up the wrong tree if we
believe that science will change. Relativity and Quantum weirdness isn't
exactly new stuff but the physicist do their things and don't care about
philosophical ramifications. A few do such as Bohr and Heisenberg in
the old days and f.ex. John Wheeler of late, but it seems to be a dying
facult
We had one Doug Renselle around here who had a knack for Quantum
Mech. and postulated a lot of strange sub-levels below the inorganic
one. He and I were a little at odds because I see this attitude as
Newageism seeping into the MOQ ....the worst form of SOMism there
is. And Mark's intellectual level full of mystical processes is the same
thing at the upper end.
It's difficult to bring across my point, but let's use General Relativity's
(GR) relationship to Newton's Physics (NP) as an analogy. NP can be
considered a special case of GR and there is a set of equations that
must be used to switch between the two ("Lorentz transformation"). At
normal physical conditions NP is sufficient, it can handle the Mars
landings, but when it comes to the interior of the sun GR must be
employed.
Applied to the MOQ it makes its static levels "special cases" of General
MOQ and the intellectual level (where focus usually is) can be called
"Newtonian metaphysics". A transformation is needed between the
MOQ and Intellect and is where my "intellect=S/O" comes in. Intellect is
adequate for ordinary use; we may speak of subjects and objects, mind
and matter ...etc. but when it comes to the ultimate questions only the
full MOQ will suffice.
At least I hope that such a "schizophrenic" (Matt called it) attitude may
be possible. What I am sure of is that all talk about a Buddhist-like
"mind" different from the usual kind, DQ tensions all such heady stuff
like these excerpts from Mark (not him of the Bible, but Squonk :-)
> The intellectual level in the MoQ has evolved a repertoire of static
> quality intellectual patterns.
Intellect has evolved intellectual patterns!! The problem is what
intellectual value IS as different from the value level it volved FROM.
> The sum total of the repertoire is evolving in an event stream, or DQ.
> The evolution of the static repertoire is towards greater coherence with
> DQ.
Well, DQ beckons the static evolution along, but I can't see that I have
spoken against that tenet.
> The important point to note is this view is not a Substance metaphysics.
> It is a Process metaphysics.
What's important is that the MOQ is no S/O metaphysics. Mark rejects
the objective part but swallows the subjective. Pirsig says that the S/O
is a good static value, the problem is where to place it in the static
sequence.
In my opinion Mark jumps between static intellect and the MOQ without
using any "transformation procedure". It will bring us and the MOQ
nowhere.
IMO
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 : Sat Jan 10 2004 - 08:06:50 GMT