Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Sun, 9 Nov 1997 05:04:51 +0100
Hello Bo and TLS!
There are several topics of discussion for TLS which I wanted to bring
up in the recent past, but I had no easy way to broach them. Maggie's
magnificent application of MoQ in her real, everyday work environment,
her request for help, and Bo's superb responses gave some grist for the
topics I want to share and discuss with all of you.
This is really difficult for me. I want to share my thoughts with TLS,
but I do not want to impose them on you. I should not fear (nor should
you) doing this because we can, above all, trust the MoQ. It will
accept any of our thoughts if they are 'better,' and it will reject them
if not. However, we must realize that 'better' always has a subsequent.
Richard Dawkins (his name has recently appeared in other posts here)
invented the term 'meme.' Meme is an idea or concept which propagates
in sentients as a (good and/or bad) viral thought. It latches in minds
and then experiences DQ and mutates much in the way we have discussed
the QE process recently. I see almost all of our contributions as
potential memes. I resisted broaching several topics because they may
be distracting memes. I feel some burden of responsibility in sharing
and addressing these topics with you.
I also found the need to address these topics individually in many prior
posts, but I felt the time was not right and I was not quite prepared.
I hope that in this one place each of you can relate my comments below
to your prior contributions.
Let me just state some categories of my topics and then use them to
interpret some of Bo's comments below:
o SOQ and sVo
o Interpenetration
o Centricity (See my use of Earth-chauvinism and homo-centricity
below, in the discussion on interpenetration for this one. Because of
the already huge size of this response, I'll spend more time on this
topic later.)
Doug Renselle.
-- Bodvar Skutvik wrote: > > Doug and Anders wrote: > > > "In the Metaphysics of Quality the world is composed of three > things: > > mind, matter, and Quality. Because something is not located in the > > object does not mean that it has to be located in your mind. > Quality > > cannot be independently derived from either mind or matter. But it > can > > be derived from the relationship of mind and matter with each other > ..etc. > > I notice that you refer to the same passage of Pirsig's SODV in your > responses to Maggie's "Quality Event" request. Okay nothing wrong > with that, and quite natural as the QE is treated there, but ever > since I saw this paper I had a feeling that it was attempt from > Pirsig's side to make himself understood by an unprepared audience. > Nothing wrong by that either, he retreats to the ZMM argumentation > stage to make the same impact as this book had on so many readers. > You will notice that the cited passage similar to the "getting > hotter" on page 233 (of my Corgi paperback). Bo,I could not find this. Please send the exact quote.
Thanks,
Doug. > > If one analyses what he says it ends with the assertion that quality > is the cause of subjects and objects, but the opening (..the world is > composed of three things..) easily gives one the impression that > subjects and objects are the major components of reality while > quality is a third entity outside of the two. In LILA, however, this > trinity is discarded! Then Doug enters his favourite field of quantum > mech. and compare the MOQ with complementarity and say that QE > corresponds to what Bohr calls "observation". All right, you Doug > surely put this inside the quality context, but to an "uninitiated" > this sound as if the human mind (consciousness) brings ...the > unmeasured particle... to materialize, and this is mind-matter, not > dynamic-static, interaction. > Bo,
On the trinity, I think Pirsig retained it and described it in Lila as, "The value is between the stove and the oaths. Between the subject and the object lies the value." Page 76 of the Bantam paperback. This is sVo and SOQ, do you agree?
I did not do this, as you said above: 'Then Doug enters his favourite field of quantum mech. and compare the MoQ with complementarity and say that QE corresponds to what Bohr calls "observation".' Look carefully. I quoted Pirsig's words directly from the SODV paper. Pirsig said that, I did not! As it happens, I agree with that view. Based on modern QM it is correct. I see this and I think Pirsig does too.
(That view distinguishes classical and quantum science: classical science has no values except the ones Pirsig delineates in SODV, and quantum science IS values (the probabilistic interactions of wave patterns).)
Yes, Bo, you are right. I and Pirsig put that in the MoQ context.
For the following segment, assume I am in the MoQ context. Further assume that I intuit MoQ's DQ-SQ first dichotomy of reality.
Bo, you have told us often, and rightly, that you fear the SO dichotomy. And above you say you fear misinterpretation of SODV by the uninitiated. That fear appears to have the effect of you wanting to avoid the use of the words Subject and Object. I think if you could trust us to be in the MoQ context without reverting to SOM, your fear might subside, right?
That brings me to the SOQ/sVo topic. From my MoQ perspective, MoQ unifies S and O under SQ division of Quality. Pirsig spends much energy in Lila on this very idea. He used the four SPoVs as a mapping to (and unification of) S and O. That allows MoQites (I like this term, Platt!) to instantly correlate Inorganic to Object (aka Matter) and Intellectual to Subject (aka Mind) when talking with a SOM-lander, while retaining the glue of the two intermediate levels. I think this is imperative for us to intuit, because it is a critical success factor (CSF) enabling us to evolve a SOM-lander into MoQ-land. It also allows us to more easily transcribe SOM to MoQ and vice versa (mandatory for context retention). We need to be able to move back and forth at will. One of you has already said this, 'I wish SOM would just go away, but it won't!' So we must not fear SOM. We must subsume it in that tiny corner of the MoQ where it belongs. MoQ is BETTER than SOM!
Pirsig's SOQ unifies S and O very simply in Quality. We need this metaphor to assist us in our shuffling twixt MoQ and SOM. sVo unifies S and O in Value. This metaphor makes it easy for us to derive SQ patterns and infer DQ and its Platt-ineffability from Quality and then subdivide SQ into the four SPoV levels while retaining the mapping to S and O.
Bo, I agree that a SOM-lander might interpret SOQ and think in a SOM manner with S and O separate and Q outside them. We have to use SOQ as a means of introducing Q into their thoughts. Just this simple meme is incredibly powerful! It is impossible to look at SOQ without merging them in countless simple ways. This is a first step. A brilliant teacher once used this technique upon a large group of quantum physicists...
Consider the genius of Pirsig to use the one word (Quality) while every human on earth intuits its meaning and ponders its ineffability! Then subsuming S and O by connecting Q. The SOM-landers don't even know what has hit them! That is an incredible advantage for MoQ!
Bo, you are concerned about some of us falling back into SOM. More important than that, I think we need to worry about helping the SOM-landers ascend into MoQ. Pirsig and we need the SOQ metaphor to do that! Once you achieve that, sVo takes you to the next step -- Wow!
I have much more to say about this, but it takes too much space and too much of your precious time reading.
Bottom line: we need S and O and the mapping of S and O to MoQ's static values to subsume SOM and proselytize MoQ. (All of the above with utmost respect to each member of TLS.)
What do you think, Bo? Does this make sense?
Mtty,
Doug Renselle.
-- Bodvar continues... > The absurdity of the SOM is lifted because Quality "Mechanics" says: > The big divide of existence is NOT between subject and object but > between dynamism and permanence! But this lands the MOQ into its own > dualistic problem. How does the dynamic/static interaction take > place? What "mechanism is involved? This is what Maggie asks about. > > My answer is that the static patterns of the lower levels are more > or less unyielding (there is no interaction) The laws of nature > (Inorganic value) are the most static values in the world - no > wonder, they ARE the world!. Life is less so, but still rather > permanent. The value of social cooperation - as such - is also > ineradicable, but communal configurations change in big or small > scale (politics), and in my answer to Maggie I call the social > leaders' visions "quality events". Finally the Intellect, and I have > the impression that this level still is regarded identical to the > MIND (of SOM) and that it is here that the exotic Quality Event is > supposed to take place in the deep recesses of quantum-size > lineaments. (Supposedly to keep the world from disappearing!) > Bo,The second topic I chose above is called 'interpenetration.'
There is a common thread that runs among many works and concepts which several authors detect. It is the idea that patterns interpenetrate.
Herrigel describes this interpenetration in, 'Zen in the Art of Archery,' as the Zen practitioner being in 'It' and 'It' being in the Zen practitioner.
Fritjof Capra devotes a whole chapter to interpenetration in his book 'The Tao of Physics,' and on page 172 of the Shambhala 5x8 paperback Capra quotes D.T. Suzuki:
"The significance of the Avatamsaka and its philosophy is unintelligible unless we once experience...a state of complete dissolution where there is no more distinction between mind and body, subject and object...We look around and perceive that...every object is related to every other object...not only spatially, but temporally,...As a fact of pure experience, there is no space without time, no time without space; they are interpenetrating." D.T. Suzuki, Preface to B.L. Suzuki, 'Mahayana Buddhism,' p.33.
Capra further says, "Greek natural philosophy was, on the whole, essentially static and largely based on geometrical considerations. It was, one could say, extremely 'non-relativistic,' and its strong influence on Western thought may well be one of the reasons why we have such great conceptual difficulties with relativistic models in modern physics." Pages 172-3 of TTOP.
I can regurgitate countless quotations on this subject. Even Pirsig indirectly avers this in Lila. I am uncertain if he does in ZMM. I think he does via the QM connections in SODV.
This brings us to gist: I think MoQ and QM imply and aver that there are interrelations and interactions at all levels via DQ all the time, but at different rates and differing amounts. The grouping of MoQ's four SPoVs and the patterns we choose to attribute each level are for sake of modeling MoQ and communicating it to other humans. The grouping is Earth-chauvinistic and homo-centric.
That does not detract from its goodness or its power to transform us from residence in SOM-land to ascendancy in MoQ-land.
The patterns are separate AND interpenetrating. That is complementarity. Further, the patterns may be (and usually are at our level) composed of other patterns which are separate AND interpenetrating. DQ mediates the potential interpenetration of all things by all other things. The degree of interpenetration ranges from one down to zero. The interpenetration is a probabilistic pattern of value.
To me, when we say that two patterns are absolutely separate and have no interaction is to revert to SOM in a BIG way. SOM says systems are isolable. QM and (I believe) MoQ says systems are nonisolable. SOM says systems may be isolated. QM and (I believe) MoQ says systems are nonlocal.
Feel free to substitute the word pattern for the word 'system' in the previous paragraph.
This interpenetration is the mediation of patterns in DQ resulting in new SPoVs at each QE. I agree with Platt that the QE transforms, but I think he and I somewhat part ways where I see the interpenetrating patterns at all levels literally assessing QEs as 'better' and latching or not latching accordingly. To me, there is an interpenetrating 'decision' among one or more patterns in DQ (also 'and DQ' or to say it at once: in/and DQ) at each QE. There is no absolute determinism in the latching, but the content of the patterns mediate whether a QE is 'better' or not.
Bottom line: DQ interpenetrates all patterns. The interpenetration of all patterns prefers the precondition that DQ interpenetrates all patterns. The QE prefers the previous two preconditions. (Again, all of the above with utmost respect to each member of TLS.)
Doug Renselle.
-- Bodvar continues... > As I understand the quality idea, the Intellectual level is the most > dynamic one (freest), but nevertheless static. The resemblance to > mind of SOM is because thoughts/language are the "carriers" of > intellectual ideas opinions etc. Because these patterns change > rapidly, one gets the impression that they are dynamic - and > volatile they are - but while they last they are static. And isn't > much of our thinking pretty static? The SOM track is so deep > worn that our train of thoughts coasts along in circles, but thanks > to Pirsig there is now a switching point. > > Thanks for reading. > Bo > Bo,The atomic SPoVs are very stable, IMO, but their interactions/interrelations and interpenetrations are highly dynamic. This is also true for the subatomic SPoVs categorized broadly as bosons (~Subjects) and fermions (~Objects).
If I recall the longest predicted life of some infinitesimal patterns (esp. photons, electrons, gravitons, and neutrinos) is infinite.
We have seen organic patterns evolve in Homo sapiens in our lifetime (3-5 generations?). Fruit flies evolve in just a few generations of 2-3 weeks per generation.
Bo, thank you for your recent awesome contributions.
Mtty,
Doug Renselle.
-- "...the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of things--that which corresponds to the 'objective' world--and all other constructions are unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute 'Truth.'"Robert M. Pirsig Page 100, "Lila" hard-bound, Bantam, 1991.
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:13 CEST