Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Fri, 29 Aug 1997 13:30:57 +0100
Doug Renselle wrote:
>
> Diana McPartlin wrote:
>
> Doug Renselle wrote:
>
> > Pirsig's philosophy unifies the subject/object dichotomy
> in the
> > macroworld. He calls this SO. He says this unification
> can only
> > happen in the context of Quality. We get SOQ. But we are
> still in
> > the macroworld. Why? Because Pirsig started at the
> inorganic level
> > and worked his way up. The inorganic level is the atomic
> level from a
> > physics perspective. The macroworld is everything above
> atoms: e.g.,
> > molecules, crystals, water, DNA, cells, proteins, organs,
> life forms,
> > and so on... The microworld is everything below the
> atomic
> > (inorganic) level. The quantum level represents the next
> level below
> > the inorganic level. At this level and below, I speculate
> that we
> > will find a different kind of unification -- could we call
> it 'soq?'
> > For me this is another unification. Note that we still
> have Pirsig's
> > Dynamic Quality unifying both. Something like this:
> DQ(SOQ,soq).
>
> >So the inorganic level is anything more complicated than an
> >atom and the
> >quantum level is anything smaller than an atom?
> (In my opinion) No,
But you said:
"The microworld is everything below the atomic (inorganic) level. The
quantum level represents the next level below the inorganic level". If
this doesn't mean that the inorganic level is anything more complicated
than an atom and the quantum level is smaller than an atom, then what
does it mean?
> remember Pirsig showed four levels:
> intellectual, social, biological, and inorganic. The bottom two
> layers are objective macroworld pattern-of-value layers. The top two
> layers are subjective macroworld pattern-of-value layers. This is the
> SO dichotomy which Pirsig unified. Biological objects are larger than
> and subsume inorganic objects.
I don't understand the relevance of this statement to my question.
> But in Lila, Pirsig includes subatomic particles in the
> inorganic layer.
>
> Quote (chp 8)
> "The data of quantum physics indicate that what are called
> subatomic
> particles cannot possibly fill the definition of a
> substance. The
> properties exist then disappear, then exist, and then
> disappear again in
> little bundles called quanta"
>
> But just below your quote on page 120 of the paperback (Bantam Dec.
> '92) Pirsig says we must abandon the Aristotelian 'substance' illusion
> in favor of the phrase 'stable inorganic pattern of value.' This is
> equivalent, except for the term 'stable' to the Mandarin 'wu li' whose
> semantics include 'patterns of organic energy,' 'enlightenment,' and
> 'nothingness.'
Pirsig says that inorganic patterns of value are the same as patterns of
organic energy? I think not. In any case, again, I don't see the
relevance.
> As Pirsig also says, we have a language problem. Perhaps this is our
> largest problem.
At this stage I should point out that I have lived in HK for five years
and can speak Cantonese. I'm not sure what the wu li that your referring
to is as you haven't given the characters. However there is a phrase "wu
li" (wut lik in Cantonese) which means physical energy, but it doesn't
mean englightenment or nothingness or inorganic patterns of value.
> Do you agree that the level 'inorganic patterns of value' is inside
> the level 'biological patterns of value?'
No I think that inorganic patterns are in the inorganic level.
If you do, then in Bohr's
> sense our thoughts are complementary. That means our communication
> can be less ambiguous.
>
> Pirsig did include quantum patterns in the inorganic pattern level in
> this paragraph, but he did so to disclose the 'platypus' of substance,
> not to deny its presence or absence in the MoQ.
So what are you saying, that he included it but he wasn't serious?
> Is this not the quantum level that he is talking about? Why
> has he now
> decided to separate this from the rest of inorganic quality?
>
> Pirsig did not separate it.
But you said earlier that Pirsig had agreed to the existence of another
level beneath the inorganic level.
Besides, it is not 'separated' from
> inorganic quality, it is in inorganic quality in the same way
> inorganic quality is in biological quality.
So is it a different level or not?
> I drew the diagram which
> is now on the LilaSquad site in late 1995. The one I sent included
> the quantum level, but did not include the ascendant levels and
> above. I sent it to him to see what he thought of it. He said it
> '...has certainly been carefully and accurately done.'
That's not the same as saying he agreed with it.
> In his return
> correspondence, he included one copyrighted copy of his Subjects,
> Objects, Data, and Values paper (SODV) which he presented at the
> Einstein Meets Magritte (EMM) conference in Brussels Belgium in late
> 1995.
>
> In that paper, Pirsig manifests his diligent efforts to see the
> connections between quantum theory and MoQ. He concludes that quantum
> physics is about Niels Bohr's 'unmeasured phenomenal object (UPO).'
> UPO is not something that Bohr defined, it is something Pirsig derives
> in the paper. [If Bohr had known of UPO he might have been able to
> better promote his philosophy of complementarity and our world would
> be much different today.] Further, Pirsig concludes that Dynamic
> Quality (DQ) and UPO are essentially the same thing.
Again, I don't see the relevance of this to my question. If you want to
change the subject you should start another thread.
> The reason I added the quantum level
So now you're saying it *is* a different level?
> is that it shows more clearly the
> fleeting aspects of the UPO in the fermions and bosons which still
> carry respectively the classical baggage of object and subject. I am
> intrigued that at the quantum level classical yes/no, true/false
> properties become stochastic (discontinuous). The truth is - it has
> always been that way, but classical scientists just couldn't see it.
> For me this gets us much closer to the 'substrate' UPO connection
> between Pirsig's SOQ and DQ.
It's difficult to comment on this until you define what your "quantum
level" is.
> I detect an unwillingness to change among some of the LilaSquad. Why
> do you feel the four levels are sacred?
I don't think the four levels are sacred. But if you want to propose a
new one you're going to have to define it and then justify why it should
be a separate level.
Diana
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@geocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:26 CEST