Jonathan, here we go
You wrote:
> I don't think I have represented you at all - unless you have now changed your
> view. Here is what you wrote just a week ago:
> MAGNUS (24/7/2001):
> >Quality events are unique,
> >no two subjects can observe the same object.
This is because of the DQ involved in each event.
> >A subject - object pair is created by each quality event.
>
> MAGNUS (29/7/2001)
> >I guess I wrote "re-created", but I also wrote:
> > With that I meant that the static patterns of the subject and object are the
> > glue between the quality events. Without static patterns, each quality event
> > *would* be completely re-creating a subject/object pair from scratch every
> time.
>
> That makes it even worse. Static patterns are now the glue BETWEEN quality
> events? That makes things really messy.
To be more precise, the static patterns that are the glue between quality
events are the quantum patterns that we perceive as the passing of time.
[...]
> That is fine by me Magnus, but you blatantly pronounce "The MoQ says".
> You should have started your sentence "Magnus says" or "IMO".
I'll meet you half way, I'll try to use "IMO, the MoQ says" in the future.
> > JONATHAN
> > > I maintain that reality can be described in terms of infinite overlapping
> > > subject-object patterns.
> >
> MAGNUS
> > I would phrase our differences like:
> >
> > You think that reality is best described by static patterns, and that we
> > experience those static patterns via quality events.
> >
>
> Magnus, you are a charletan. You completely twist and misrepresent my
> position.
> I do not hold the view you ascribe to me, as most people who read this
> discussion also seem to realize.
I tried to rephrase your position in an attempt to show my understanding
of it. I obviously got it wrong, but please correct me instead of
resorting to name calling.
Forgive me, but I don't see how otherwise to put "infinite overlapping
subject-object patterns" into the quality event context.
How would you relate those infinite overlapping subject-object patterns
to the quality event?
BTW, Elephant asked for my thoughts about the relationship between
DQ and SQ. They go something like this.
Reality is Quality which is an event, the quality event. This quality
event consists of two parts, the static which is the source of the
subject and the object, and the dynamic which is the unpredictability
of each quality event. It's the dynamic part that is the source of all
real change, the part that makes even the most predictable event to
sometimes turn out a little differently.
To restrict DQ like this is not an offense to the rule "don't define it",
because Reality = Quality = the quality event = DQ + SQ. The restriction
of DQ has already been made. DQ = Reality - SQ, or, everything that isn't
SQ is DQ.
> MAGNUS
> > I think that reality is best described by quality events, and that we
> > deduce the static patterns from those quality events.
> >
>
> By dividing quality into discreet "events", you are already in the realm of
> patterns.
Not quite, DQ always has influence over each event, so the patterns aren't
all static. They are somewhat unpatterned.
> Furthermore, you have already admitted that your "quality events"
> indeed translate into subject-object pairs. Thus Magnus, if you take my
> statement and your statement about how reality can be described, we are
> largely in agreement.
Which statement of your's is that? Your original one or my rephrased
version? (Which I thought was incorrect??)
> Magnus, if you want your version to become truly useful
> (a genuine "best" description of reality), I suggest some more work to develop
> the idea of the "quality event" beyond a slogan.
Slogan? What about Pirsig's numerous platypii in Lila? I think it has a rather
good case going against a substance based reality.
Magnus
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:32 BST