Jason Gaedtke (jgaedtke@scitele.com)
Mon, 1 Sep 1997 04:22:04 +0100
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana McPartlin ÄSMTP:dianaÉasiantravel.comÅ
Sent: Friday, August 29, 1997 1:09 PM
To: Multiple recipients of
Subject: LS Re: MOQ puzzles
Thus with much wrestling the definition of the "Quantum" level would
seem to be subatomic phenomena. The inorganic level, meanwhile, is atoms
and patterns composed of atoms that are not organic.
Now the question is: what is it about subatomic phenomena that makes
them so fundamentally different from atoms that they must be categorized
into a different level of quality?
Diana
-- post message - mailto:skwokÉspark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquadÉgeocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670Diana, As I've stated before, I do not pretend to be an expert in the area of quantum mechanics, but I would like to pursue this thread further and to offer a first attempt to answer your question. (If anyone would care to amend or clarify what follows, by all means do so!)
I do believe that a definite distinction can be made between atomic and subatomic phenomena. According to my second-hand interpretation, atomic phenomena are for the most part static, observable, and measurable. Atoms do not spontaneously appear and disappear. They do not exhibit wave/particle duality. They are not spontaneously created and destroyed (at least not under the conditions that we are most familiar with -- that is, standard atmospheric temperatures and pressures). (These general statements exclude radioactive elements, which do in fact spontaneously decay.)
The very essence of subatomic patterns, conversely, involve a constant interplay between existence and nonexistence, creation and destruction, being and becoming. Dynamic Quality (a.k.a. "The Quality Event," measurement, experience, observation, etc.) plays a vital role here. Prior to this Event, a subatomic pattern of value does not exist. The closest we can come to describing what is taking place here is to say that such a pattern is dynamically created out of an elusive "vacuum" of potential. (The concept underlying the "vacuum" here does not lend itself well to verbal interpretation. It is incorrect to say that the vacuum is nothing -- since it contains within itself the potential for all things. It is also incorrect to say that it is anything -- since it possesses no distinguishing characteristics prior to the moment of the Quality Event.)
Drawing this conceptual distinction between the atomic and subatomic levels emphasizes the necessary and sufficient role that Dynamic Quality plays in producing all Static patterns. Immediately following the Quality Event, the subatomic particles (over two hundred of them identified to date) do in fact exist and do possess characteristics which completely distinguish them from the higher-level atomic patterns that they enable. If these phenomena are neglected (or grouped together with atomic patterns), then how can the MoQ account for such documented phenomena as wave/particle duality and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? Certainly we cannot describe these as characteristics of Dynamic Quality itself, since by definition is a creative event, possessing no distinguishing characteristics of its own! (Except perhaps an inherently evolutionary or synthesizing tendency, hence facilitating the emergence of Static patterns of value.)
Two final thoughts which I would like to direct toward Bodvar...
In a recent response he wrote:
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.
It's a bit ironic that you should choose this particular clique, since the image of water offers a very suitable analog for the theoretical interplay between Dynamic and Static Quality. The adaptive, flowing macroworld characteristics of water correspond well with my appreciation for the evolutionary, life-giving microworld aspects of Dynamic Quality as exhibited in the Quality Event. So in a certain poetic sense, all of the Static patterns that we are debating are in fact "written on (and by) water!"
Bodvar continues:
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".
I (as I'm sure is true of most of the participants in this discussion) am well aware of Pirsig's static latching concept. Furthermore, I see the current debate over the necessity of a Quantum level being just as fundamentally important as the existence of any of the other Static levels (whose importance is, hopefully, mutually appreciated).
If Danah Zohar's theory that Bose-Einstein condensates underlie all conscious experience is someday tested and confirmed to be true -- the likelihood of which is entirely indeterminate at this point -- then we shall have a hard time producing Magnus's coveted AI if the unique characteristics of Quantum-level phenomena are ignored or classified together with other inorganic patterns.
(Incidentally, I would be very interested in further exploring Bodvar's negative interpretation of Zohar's work. If this proves to be a significant tangent that the majority of the group would not care to participate, then perhaps we can discuss this further through private correspondence.)
Finally, Bodvar writes:
...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.
Very well, but what if our tender fledgling turns out to be a bit "nutrient-deficient?" Are you suggesting that we stand by and watch as it wither away in obscurity? Wouldn't it be more moral to correct the necessary deficiencies and allow the system to prosper? (I don't honestly believe that it is your intention to hinder the evolution of the MoQ. I am only trying to prevent your appreciable literary proficiency from dominating this very important debate.)
Thoughts, anyone? Jason
-- post message - mailto:skwokÉspark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquadÉgeocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:55 CEST