Magnus, Joao and and Foci.
MAGNUS wrote:
> I'm surprised. Do you really mean that you're content with "time"
> being only a concept, an IntPoV? Another quite important note that
> I've said a few times before: Newton created the *law* of gravity,
> not gravity itself!
Dear Magnus
When did the uppermost static level become "only"? I'm afraid you
walk straigt into the same trap as Jaap making Intellectual patterns
"just in the mind", but to start with gravity: Newton created the
LAW of gravity which is to say that the previous observation of the
tendency things had to fall to the ground became GRAVITY. Going
back to Greeks we know that they neither used the term nor had
an inkling of its Newtonian context. Based on the "tendency"
variant of garavity along with a "tendency" variant of (what we call)
INERTIA they constructed a physics which in turn created
paradoxes. But Newton was not the last word, with Einstein's
General Relativity gravity was placed in an even wider context, and
who knows how wide the context may be?
> The *law* of gravity is an IntPoV, gravity is
> inorganic value. Analogous with time I would say that there is a
> concept called time, but there is also an inorganic value behind
> that concept.
How can you distinguish between the two without reverting to the
SOM with an objective world and a subjective world of (just)
concepts? The very gist of the Quality Metaphysics is that this
division is invalid. To speak of an inorganic value behind a concept
is the thinnest quality glaze over SOM, in the MoQ proper Biology
and Society comes between "inorganic value" and the "concept"
(Intellect).
> No, I don't mean to make Intellect the innermost reality. I mean to
> make the quantum level the innermost reality. And I'm not too keen
> on calling DQ innermost. The MoQ states that higher levels are more
> dynamic than lower, so why would the lowest level be pure DQ? Makes
> no sense at all. And BTW, DQ is not an issue when discussing static
> levels.
Not too keen on calling Dynamic Quality the innermost reality??!
Hmm, that is quite an assertion to make. I don't know how you
visualize the Quality universe, but to me everything "floats" on a
dynamic sea so when you dig deep enough you encounter a
certain fuzziness at all levels, also at the inorganic one, but where
did I say that it is pure DQ?
> Doesn't that argument imply SOLAQI? Anyway, that's one of the
> reasons I'm not a fan of SOLAQI. I don't think Intellect ever was
> reality itself.
It does, definitely! All levels had a period of being the upper rung of
the static ladder and that's what I mean by "being reality itself",
Intellect had its hey-day as the Subject-Object Metaphysics - still
has, it very much dominate our outlook ...blocks it obviously :-).
> I don't see why a quantum level is so hard to accept. The quantum
> level created time, space, gravity, etc. The inorganic level created
> hydrogen, helium, carbon etc. using those quantum level building
> blocks. The biological level created plants and animals using the
> building blocks of the inorganic level and so on. It fits perfectly
> into the MoQ and it also shows how utterly different the levels are.
> It shows that the phrase "uses building blocks of a lower level"
> doesn't necessarily mean to use "building blocks" as in "stuff with
> mass". The building blocks can be something completely different,
> like time or space.
I do not deny a quantum effect, but the term "level" implies some
special reality below the Inorganic - capable of creating - and that's
what I protest. Please read the Pirsig quote that Roger had dug up.
> Further, I've been studying some physics the last few days and I'm
> not being discouraged at all. For one thing, a separate quantum
> level explains the wave-particle dualism. The wave view of
> electromagnetism is simply the inorganic value and the particle view
> is the quantum value.
If adopting your view for experiment's sake I would have said the
opposite - particle sounds more matterish than a wave - but I don't
see the need for this distinction. It's like the forces/matter or
energy/matter" duality, the first half of those pairs isn't more
"noble" than the second - it's all inorganic patterns.
> A different example of the same dualism is
> taste, only there are different levels involved. The biological view
> is the taste we feel when we put a bar of chocolate in our mouth,
> the inorganic view is the chemical composition of chocolate.
> Depending on which level we use to measure, we see different
> results. This has been bothering scientists for quite some time but
> the MoQ (with a quantum level) explains it. (Quite beautifully
> IMHO).
About chocolate as inorganic and as biological taste (SENSE) I
agree ......if you had added the social FEELING to share it, and the
REASON you find for not sharing, I would have agreed even more.
But ..."a different example of the same dualism"... eludes me,
along with the quantum level reference.
********************
JOAO wrote:
> Time is an intellectual pattern of value with which we associate
> perceptions (according to our memory), sequencing them.
Hi Joao.
You are Joao of the "Yahoo Clubs"? This is a tougher place ;-)
Maybe we are in agreement, although I have a feeling that your
"time as an intellectual pattern" means something necessary for
memory, but also animals remember - sequencing even - when
they learn to go through mazes. Not in the sense of carrying on an
inner dialogue "....hmm let's see, here I turn right ...." yet they
store information. But maybe you have some subtler meaning in
mind? Tell us.
Too long as always.
Bo
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:31 BST