Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:51:17 +0100
Hi Dave and Lila Squad,
Dave Thomas wrote:
>
...
>
> I sometimes think we trash SOM when it is not really necessary. After all > it has helped us accomplish a great deal and until we transition to
> better system (which will take generations) its the current model and it
> is working however poorly we might think. To turn an aphorism "Let's not
> break it till it's fixed"
>
> That being said, is it important to have a separate energy level? I
> don't think it is crucial but would fall on Doug's side because it makes > the transition from SOM to MoQ simpler and from a metaphysical sense if
> one is looking for the smallest, most indivisable, most basic static
> quality; quanta, protons, etc right now are it.
>
> Dave
>
Dave,
If you look at several of my prior posts, you will see that I advocate
this position (i.e., not trashing SOM). SOM is less good than MoQ, but
it did get us where we are today. MoQ cannot survive (in Dawkins' terms
will not be an ESS [an evolutionarily stable strategy]) if it REJECTS
SOM. That is why I use the term 'subsume.' MoQ must subsume SOM as a
limited truth (one of many) in a sub-context of MoQ.
(Note however, it is critical that we are able to distinguish SOM
patterns from MoQ patterns -- especially patterns of behavior, language
and syntax. The semantics of SOM are irrefutably inferior to the
semantics of MoQ, and BTW (by-the-way), Pirsig has already done much of
the work for us here. We just need to read his three works (ZMM, Lila,
and SODV [this is on the website]) and his correspondence to members of
TLS (The Lila Squad) and delineate the differences.)
If we are to succeed, we must not REJECT SOM, we must SUBSUME SOM. Then
we can begin to talk with SOMites about the meme of expansion, growth
and enlightenment into MoQ-land, without the attendant negative baggage
of 'rejection.' Please note that from my perspective subsumption is not
equivalent to advocacy. It is closer to demotion. It is a kind of
containment or fencing off of the trouble-making SOM.
On the energy topic: The way I see it, energy is one of the dynamic
aspects of Quality. All latched SPoVs (Static/stable Patterns of Value)
are surrounded by and interpenetrated by the energy of DQ (Dynamic
Quality). Another recent post I made disclosed that quantum and other
physicists think the VED (vacuum energy density)
surrounding/interpenetrating all matter (SPoVs) is almost unfathomably
large: 10^93 grams per cubic centimeter. If true, there is no shortage
of energy. This jibes positively with the many other 'miracles' of our
MoQ/quantum multiverse.
Quanta, protons, etc., IMhO are SPoVs born of QEs (Quality Events) at
the subatomic level (which TLS has chosen for the time being as included
in the Inorganic Level).
Mtty Dave and TLS,
Doug Renselle.
-- " But quantum theory has destroyed the idea that only properties located in external physical objects have reality."Robert M. Pirsig, page 14 in his paper "Subjects, Objects, Data and Values," presented at the Einstein Meets Magritte conference, Fall 1995.
-- 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 - 16:42:15 CEST