Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 02:45:11 +0100
This site has in a few days developed into one of the "hottest spots" on
the philosophical Internet (can we keep up this pace?), but I appreciate
Jason's effort to keep the exchange polite and positive. I also see his
point in trying to counterbalance my rhetoric, but when something interests
me or go against my opinion I don't manage to stay quiet. The "subatomic
level" debate meets both criteria so here I go again:
Jason upholds his view of a distinction between sub and regular atomic
phenomenons, and says among else:
.......atomic phenomena.... do not exhibit wave/particle duality. They are
not spontaneously
created and destroyed..etc".
Re the first. Particle compounds (Atoms/Molecules) don't, but protons and
neutrons do, and they are "atomic" according to Jason's criteria in the
sense of being permanent, observable and measurable (not elementary of
course). If used in the double slit experiment they appear as waves or
particles depending upon the setup, and as everything is made up of
particles the double nature (dynamism) underpins everything upwards.
Re. the second. I don't think the atom is a useful borderline except in the
sense that the simplest atom (in molecular form) is the lightest element of
the macroworld. I feel that Jason's "subatomic" realm are the more elusive
host of particles that hardly live long enough to be detected (only
relativistic effects in particle accelerators make it possible), and yet
WHEN those particles occur they are "Stable Inorganic Patterns". A
particle is not a substance that obeys laws: it is the law - or the
pattern - or the value - itself! It is a little moral order (LILA p.392).
We must keep in mind that the stability term (of the MOQ patterns) has
nothing to do with durability in time. A pattern can be discontinuous both
in time and space.
It is here - with all respect - I feel that a little misunderstanding may
introduce itself and forgive me for stressing this point:: The
subject/object myth of various objective substances, subject to natural
laws is left completely in the MOQ. The Static Inorganic Patterns (along
with all patterns of all levels) are MORALITY patterns; continuous or
discontinuous, permanent or perishable doesn't matter. Even the virtual
particles that don't live long enough to be registered are "stable
patterns" the unmeasurable instant they exist. The rest is dynamic. There
cant be a pattern to dynamism, its selfcontradictory. (I disregard the new
fractal and chaos theories in this context. They counter the old void
nature of vaccuum, but not the MOQ - to the contrary).
Finally. As the Organic, the Social and the Intellectual patterns are
based on the Inorganic, I fully agree with what Jason says lower down
about written on water - metaphysically seen dynamism is at the root of
everything, but there can be standing waves in a dynamic medium.
Lastly: I'm not "negative" towards Danah Zohar, and I would be happy to
discuss her ideas. I only said she is very close to a Quality understanding
without quite making it, and members of the LilaSquad can't possibly blame
me for thinking that only Pirsig has made the full transition. I also
notice Jason's doubts regarding Magnus' "Artificial Intelligence" input
with reference to Zohar's Einstein - Bose condensate.This is a very
interesting field so allow me to return to it later - with a review of
Zohar's "The Quantum Self". (Magnus has possibly something to say about the
AI also)
PS. I don't go for any 'worship Pirsig' style, I don't think he would like
any messiah role - I have had my scares regarding his ideas, but when they
always seem to come out on top, I cant help sounding a little
awed.
Bodvar
-- 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 - 16:41:55 CEST