Hi Bo and Moffers
Bo wrote:
>
> 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",
No Bo, you know me better than that. I meant that if time is only a concept,
like the term "rational", then inorganic patterns would not be able to
value time. But inorganic patterns do value time. A glass broken in a
thousand pieces stays broken in a thousand pieces. It doesn't suddenly
travel backwards in time and mends itself. And since inorganic patterns
value time, it can't be "only" IntPoV.
I used "only" because in this case, a higher level would mean that
lower levels wouldn't be able to value it. Sometimes, more is less.
> > 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).
I'm afraid here's where our interpretation of the intellectual level
differs. My view is that intellectual patterns are simply representations
of other patterns, whatever the level. So, gravity would be an
inorganic value that inorganic patterns are able to value. The law of
gravity on the other hand is the intellectual representation of gravity.
This does *not* mean that the intellectual patterns are subjects and
the patterns it represent are objects. But there *is* a division, it's
just not the same as in SOM, and it's definitely not primary.
> > 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,
Right, I agree, I read "innermost reality" as "lowest level", my
mistake. The main point was that DQ is not a level. Levels are static.
It's DQ that intervenes in every quality event to make reality at
every level more or less dynamic, or unpredictable.
> 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.
I guess you mean the "Only Dynamic Quality did this." part? I don't
think it says much since DQ is the only thing that can really *do*
(create) anything. The question I'm trying to answer with a quantum
level is: From what did DQ create the inorganic universe?
> > 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 -
To get technical, the particles, i.e. photons in this case are called
particles not because they have mass, they don't, but because of their
quantified nature. Waves on the other hand are continuous.
> 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.
Are those really dualities? The wave-particle duality is considered
strange because the same "thing" can be perceived as two different
things depending on how you measure it. Forces/matter and energy/matter
have to be converted before you can measure it on the other side of
the duality.
You say you don't see the need for this distinction. But the quantum
world is so vastly different from the inorganic. I really think it's
just as different from the inorganic as the biological from the
inorganic. The laws of nature simply doesn't exist anymore, just as
the laws of biology simply doesn't exist in the inorganic world.
It's that simple.
> 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.
That would be "a different example of the wave-particle dualism,
only there are two other levels involved"...
Magnus
------- 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