From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Apr 17 2004 - 18:59:09 BST
Hi Sam, all
Perhaps this annotation from Lila's Child is worth pondering though I'm
unsure there is a better answer to your question than RMP provides:
"I see today more clearly than when I wrote the SODV paper that the key to
integrating the MOQ with science is through philosophic idealism, which says
that
objects grow out of ideas, not the other way around. Since at the most
primary level the
observed and the observer are both intellectual assumptions, the paradoxes
of quantum
theory have to be conflicts of intellectual assumption, not just conflicts
of what is
observed. Except in the case of Dynamic Quality, what is observed always
involves an
interaction with ideas that have been previously assumed.
So the problem is not, “How can observed nature be so screwy?” but can also
be, “What is wrong with our most primitive assumptions that our set of ideas
called “nature” are turning out to be this
screwy?” Getting back to physics, this question becomes, “Why should we
assume that
the slit experiment should perform differently than it does?” I think that
if researched it
would be found that buried in the data of the slit experiment is an
assumption that light
exists and follows consistent laws independently of any human experience. If
so, the
MOQ would say that although in the past this seems to have been the highest
quality
assumption one can make about light, there may be a higher quality one that
contradicts
it. This is pretty much what the physicists are saying but the MOQ provides
a sound
metaphysical structure within which they can say it." (Annotation #102)
We could substitute "patterns of value" for "light" and say: when there is
an assumption that patterns of value exist and follow consistent laws
independently of any human experience the MOQ would say that although in the
past this seemed a high quality assumption there may be a higher quality one
that contradicts it.
Dan
>From: "Sam Norton" <elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: Re: MD The Individual Level
>Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:08:18 +0100
>
>Hi Dan, all.
>
>Pirsig: "The MOQ says [the 'I'] is a collection of static patterns cabable
>of apprehending Dynamic
>Quality."
>
>Exactly. The question is what sort of static patterns they are, ie how best
>they can be
>characterised.
>
>Sam
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
From must-see cities to the best beaches, plan a getaway with the Spring
Travel Guide! http://special.msn.com/local/springtravel.armx
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 Apr 17 2004 - 19:00:30 BST