Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Sat, 30 Aug 1997 19:22:22 +0100
>From Bodvar:
This morning (the 30th)there were new postings, and I was happy to find
Doug's offer for withdrawing his table among them. For me, however, Diana's
solution is OK. I also acknowledge Jason's plea for keeping the exchange
dynamic, but we must be extremely cautious to modify Pirsig's teachings at
that
fundamental level and at this early stage. There is something between
carved
in stone and written on water. In LILA there is a passage where Pirsig
describes how life found foothold in matter and he says:"A dynamic advance
is meaningless until it can find some static pattern with which to protect
itself from degeneration back to the conditions that existed before the
advance was made... a static latching-on of the gain that has been made,
then another dynamic advance..etc".
Some 'latching' of his teachings is needed for it to find foothold and make
progress. Another parallel(from ZMM): When Subject/Objectivism was just a
fleeting idea hold by a little "Socrates-Squad" in a predominant
"sophisticated" culture, they fought like wolves to keep the teachings
pure. Now history is in the process of another turn, where SOM is to be
replaced by another grander overview. At this early stage it is a fragile
touch and go, MOQ must be nurtured carefully - no pruning or experimental
additions please.
A last go (for me) at the confounding "additional levels" issue. Our
bickering over this reminds me of Albert Einstein and Niels Borh during
their famous fight over the interpretation of Quantum theory: Bohr said:
"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physics
description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find how
nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature." I have an
impression that what Magnus Berg earlier (and Bohr) pointed out is not
heeded sufficiently: There is no physical/objective realm that metaphysics
may or may not agree with. Theory comes first.
The last sentence is madness in a Subject/Object context, and as young
Phædrus of ZMM knew of no other reality, it blew his mind. Luckily, he
survived the trip outside our Subject/Object Mythos and came back to tell
of another perspective.
Einstein never reconciled himself with the uncanny consequences of the
Copenhagen interpretation and searched for the hidden parameters that would
make quantum theory into ordinary Newtonian physics. The search for new
levels is a parallel to Einstein's hunt; a MOQ after such a modification
would be another subject/object physics "mysticism" a la Capra and/or
Danah Zohar. (I have read both and particularly Zohar shows how close it is
possible to be a quality breakthrough, but not making it completely).
Lastly: The entries of Anders and Jimmy of how quantum theory is
interpreted - not least the reference to the Schrödinger's Cat thought
experiment is very interesting, but I must limit myself.
One absolutely last thing: I accused Doug of not having grasped the basics
of the MOQ, from what he writes I take that back with apologies. He may be
the best ambassador of our common cause.
Bodvar
----------
> From: Doug Renselle <renselle@on-net.net>
> To: Multiple recipients of <skwok@spark.net.hk>
> Subject: LS Re: MOQ puzzles
> Date: 29. august 1997 19:26
>
> Diana,
>
> I hereby retract the MoQ table I formerly submitted to the LilaSquad
> site. I have thought about this a lot. For me Pirsig is about
> unification of ideas and new patterns of value, especially unification
> of subject and object. Pirsig is about DQ which allows for new memes to
> spontaneously arise. I want to be part of that process.
>
> It is clear that my perceptions do not align well with those of you and
> Bodvar. I sense a rift, caused by me, in the early stages of the
> development of the LilaSquad. I do not want to be responsible for
> damaging your efforts. I am for good, positive energy. I believe that
> negative energy destroys!
>
> I have enjoyed this brief tete a tete with you,
>
> Doug Renselle.
> ======================
>
> Bodvar Skutvik wrote:
>
> > > Diana McPartlin wrote (to Doug Renselle):
> >
> > > So the inorganic level is anything more complicated than an atom and
> > the
> > > quantum level is anything smaller than an atom?
> > >
> > > 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"
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree with Diana, but will add the following: I don't
> >
> > pretend to be an official MOQ spokesman, but I protest Doug Renselle's
> >
> > introduction of - God knows what - in his "worksheet". He admits that
> > it
> > is purely speculative, but goes on to say..."it may be useful for you
> > in
> > addressing the Pirsig system..! Hardly. If anyone surfs on to the site
> > and
> > spots this and believes it to be a table of the MOQ, the person is
> > sure to
> > leave as soon as possible and never come back - I would at least.
> >
> > It revolts me because I feel it goes against the grain of the Quality
> > idea
> > which is to simplify the messes that Subject/Object thinking has led
> > to,
> > and I cannot in my wildest fantasies believe that Pirsig has vouched
> > for
> > this. Doug has better come up with some documentation that he has his
> > OK,
> > and until it is presented I suggest the thing be removed from the
> > page. He
> > may
> > write whatever he wants on the internal mailing list, but to have it
> > up on
> > the billboard isn't fair.
> >
> > Doug says this is a graphical distillation of chapter 12+ in LILA, I
> > have
> > just reread it and how and where he finds grounds for introducing
> > ....additional static levels above and below his essential four
> > ones....is
> > incomprehensible. The said chapter opens with the following statement:
> >
> > "They are exhaustive. That's all there are".
> >
> > Its heading "Dynamic Value Patterns" is a misnomer too, if one thing
> > is for
> > sure it is that Dynamic value has no patterns to it. (Let's keep the
> > fractal nature of chaos aside). It shows that Doug has not grasped the
> > very
> > essence of the Quality.
> >
> > Sorry for sounding so zealous, but I find it terribly important to
> > keep the
> > quality from being polluted. Doug may add tables to his heart's
> > delight if
> > they are underpinned by the fundamental simplicity: For instance the
> > Social
> > interactions are truly baffling and may give employment to his fertile
> > mind
> > for years, but don't mess with the fundamentals.
> >
> > PS. The "Einstein meets Margritte" paper will soon be available on the
> >
> > site, and everyone can see that Doug has no back-up from Pirsig for
> > his
> > assertions.
> >
> > Bodvar
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@geocities.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
-- 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