From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Aug 01 2004 - 07:05:18 BST
Hello everyone
>From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise
>Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:33:41 -0700
>
>Hi Dan, DM, all,
>
>Thanks for the thoughts. I'm feeling better every day.
Hi Mark
You're welcome; that's good to hear.
>
>Dan comments:
>In Anders' and Platt's LILA quote it's stated that societies and
>thoughts, etc. "can't by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic
>Quality." A living being is composed of four static levels. Inorganic
>and biological patterns of value can be detected with scientific
>instruments. Social and intellectual patterns of value cannot. It
>seems to me that inorganic and biological patterns of value can
>perceive and adjust to Dynamic Quality whereas social and
>intellectual patterns of value have nothing in common with the lower
>levels except evolutionary history. Those patterns do not exist in a
>state that can perceive and adjust to Dynamic Quality by themselves.
>They have to rely on the support of inorganic and biological levels.
>
>msh says:
>Then this means that only scientifically detectable patterns have a
>direct relationship with DQ. Wouldn't this attribute to
>matter/energy a kind of quality precedence over mind/ideas?
No. Remember the MOQ starts with experience. Scientific instruments have no
more a direct relationship to Dynamic Quality than do the senses. Scientific
instruments are an extention of the senses. It may seem like scientists, say
physicists, are working with inorganic patterns of value but they're not.
They're working with ideas. Perhaps this quote will help:
LILA'S CHILD Annotation #95
95. 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.
(Robert Pirsig)
>This
>also would seem to imply a time lag between the evolution of matter
>(Objects) and mind (Subjects), with objects deriving from Quality,
>then subjects deriving from objects.
The light we see is not the light of the world. Science infers that when
life first appeared on Earth however many billions of years ago there were
no humans around to experience the event. "We" didn't make an appearance
until just recently geologically speaking. Inorganic patterns of value
apparently have no need of subjects to derive them from objects derived from
Quality.
>So that, until sensate beings
>evolved, reality consisted of Quality-driven objects, and no subjects
>at all. It almost seems like minds, societies and ideas are merely
>afterthoughts of Quality (Creation). Or accidents.
How could there be objects when there were no subjects to observe? That
there was "something" would a safe bet if a person happened to be of a
betting type I suppose but how would one obtain proof to win the bet?
Anthony McWatt covers this in his PhD thesis:
http://www.anthonymcwatt.co.uk/
I'd recommend to anyone interested in the MOQ to invest in a little
knowledge and order Anthony's thesis. It'll be well worth your investment.
You'll learn more than I could ever explain here.
>
>I'm not sure what this means, if it's right. But I think I see where
>there might be some metaphysical justification for the "individual"
>level suggested by Platt and David Morey. I have to think more, and
>will wait for comments.
I tend to disagree but I've been wrong before. Of course once I thought I
was wrong but I later discovered I was mistaken.
>
>As always, feedback by anyone will be appreciated.
Comments are always welcome from anyone,
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Planning a family vacation? Check out the MSN Family Travel guide!
http://dollar.msn.com
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 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 07:06:21 BST