Greetings Magnus and Bobby,
Magnus wrote:
> Hmm... Future time. I mean, the concept feels very familiar and there's no
> doubt in anybody's mind about what we mean with it. But it still feels
awkward
> to discuss the big Q using a term that is only available in the SQ part of
it.
As Bobby pointed out (I think) the only way to describe the big Q is with
Static (language) patterns. Since I'm most of the time a student in physics
I prefere using fysical entities and terms to describe anything - maybe you
prefere an other analogy.
> Time, as we know it, is a static (inorganic) pattern that connects all
particles
> in the universe to experience the same flow of time.
...
> On the other hand, if we imagine a place devoid of time, this pattern that
> connects all particles to the same flow of time wouldn't exist. Each
particle
> would be free to move forward or backward in time just as it may move to
the
> right or left, up or down, ...
>
> It's exactly this force that connects all particles in the universe and
says:
>
> - Reality is now!
>
> that is time. I guess it's the same thing you call the flow of Quality
because
> since reality is Quality it also says, Quality is now.
...
> What I read here is that you think that static patterns does influence
> future time. So, 'the not yet experienced Quality' can't be all DQ. I
simply
> don't think past/future is the first split of Q. SQ/DQ is something else.
I don't think either that past/future is the first split, I think that
experienced/not-experienced is the first split (the defined/undefined split
from a personal perspective). In *normal*, everyday experience this split
can be roughly cut down to a past/future split, but this was just a first
approach to the experienced/not-experienced split. Maybe I should have
expressed myself clearer.
The fysic understanding of time can have a discussion of its own but thats
not the purpose now. I understand the whole thing as folows:
- The future is undefined, that is say I don't think a deterministic point
of view is not defendable.
- Movement of "objects" through time must be coherent, a thing can't "jump"
through time.
(here I have to exclude the very very small particles, so regard "normal"
objects)
- When the position of an object in the past is known -experienced- it is
part of a static pattern.
(- When the position is never measured or known at all it stays Dynamic)
- DQ is completely undefined but for reality to exist it has to work on a
(more or less) defined SQ, for reality to exist events must be coherent
through time.
- Since the position for the next instance of time must be coherent with the
current position, the possibilities for the next instance are constrained by
the statics of the present instance.
- The past experiences of the observer influences his perception and thus
future experiences.
- People can verify each others experiences since they share a certain
static base.
- Nothing of the things we call reality are fully dynamic nor fully static
but combination, the levels are defined by different amounts of DQ in the
combination.
- As we wander in the higher levels (closing in on pure DQ) we leave the
common static base so far it becomes harder and harer to compare and verify
each others experiences till in the end there is only a mystic experience
whitch can't be discussed anymore.
- Although the experiences of *pure* DQ may vary (D)Q is absolute and
therefor One, there is one reality of Q only our perceptions of the One Q
vary. (Yes, this sounds more like religion then like philosophy.)
> Right, the human experience *is* very related to time. But as we're
digging
> deeper and deeper into the physical reality we live in - specifically
quantum
> physics - we're starting to see something that is not dependent on time.
> Whether it is DQ or a sub-inorganic level remains to be discovered.
I just started colleges quantum fysics so I can't say to understand them
fully. What I understand of them is that for instance the position of a
particle is undefined within a certain probability untill measured; but on
the action of measuring the particle is defined to a position IT DID NOT
HAVE BEFORE for at didn't have any position but only a probability. At the
instance of measurement the particle crosses the defined/undefined split
(when you say that measuring is a way of experiencing the position it also
crosses the experienced/not-experienced split, what is the same to me
although the perspective varies). I think th equantum fysics could say that
the undefined particle is a form of DQ constrained by a SQ pattern -the
probability function- that becomes SQ at the instance of experience, that is
measurement, and will become more and more Dynamic again after it is 'let
free'.
I don't know for sure how quantum fysics handles time but I would say that
fysically time is just I parameter for describing the position of a
particle, but as I said that's a different discussion.
To bobby:
As far as I understand your post, you want to defend a relativistic point of
view and from that point say that it is hardly possible to agree on the
experience of Quality and that we better leave it altogether. By breaking
down the object-subject split the MOQ leaves much room for relativists but
(as said before in this group) Pirsig does not defend the subjective point
of view more the objective (for then the SOM split would be sneaked in
through the back door). I think the idea of one undefinable Quality can be
handled very good from a mono-sophistic, or monotheistic point of view. We
al might have a slightly diffenrent perception of Q but I think it is worth
talking and discussing about it for in the end al personal views will be
"small tracks leading to the same place" and by crossing many of these
tracks you may define the place of that point.
Greetings,
Jaap
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:30 BST