Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Fri, 5 Dec 1997 14:42:37 +0100
Dave wrote:
> > "So I will make this assertion about those elements of reality we call now
> > call "objects" in MoQ all will have aspects of their total reality that
> > lies in each of the four static levels."
Hugo wrote:
> > >Is the last line true?
> >
> > I can see your point that 'objects', being intellectual constructs, will be
> > part of the intellectual level, and - us being inherently biological and
> > social too - they "have aspects of their total reality that lies in each of
> > the four static levels". But this does not mean that there is, or was,
> > nothing just inorganic, something non-intellectual, before we formed our
> > view of the world. I would say that we cannot do without this naturalistic
> > or realistic or evolutionary view of the world. But your idea goes straight
> > to the heart of the idealistic worldview
Dave continued:
> I reread Pirsig Brussels paper and may have some more insight into this. In
> discussing the relationship between Bohr's philosophy and MoQ. He developed
> some diagrams of Bohr's system which places reality as a construct which was
> first developed in the mind of observer A and then unambiguously communicated
> to observer B. When observer B, or many observers B concurr with the
> observation you have a static pattern for that particular reality. He seems to
> agree with this but takes exception with Bohr in that, from what I can tell
> from this brief overview, Bohr failed to clearly state that the input to his
> experiment was real also. Pirsig goes on to relate this real input to the
> experiment as Dynamic Quality. I take this, combined with other things Pirsig
> has said, to mean that he agrees with the Materialists insomuch as there is a
> large group of stuff which is external to the mind which has reality whether
> the mind is present or not. And then goes on and agrees with the Idealists
> that man's reality is a construct of the mind which is unique to the
> individual but that we can and do come to agreement as a society about a group
> of static patterns,which are mental, that we call reality. So in one sense
> Mind/Body split has some validity in that we have both a mental construct of
> reality in the mind and we have a physical reality of the body.But since we
> can't clearly say where one starts and the other leaves off we would should
> treat them as one.
>
> Dave
Hugo and Dave and Squad.
I intercept your exchange in midair and perhaps don't have the
background to mingle. But am I right in understanding Dave as
saying that all objects are real at all value levels, but that Hugo
finds it true only in the sense that they exist in our (intellectual)
minds?
I get a little wary when mind is introduced into the discussion in
(what I call) a SOM sense. Dave is correct in interpreting Pirsig's
Brussels paper, but again I must air my feeling that Pirsig wasn't
wholly satisfied with it, and that he refused to attend the next
year's conference in Copenhagen because he sensed that it would lead
nowhere near the quality goal.
If what the quantum physicists observe, or put another way, if
the physical has some reality beyond being inorganic value, i.e.
approaches the "objectivity" of SOM, and that mind influences it, we
are solidly back in mind/matter metaphysics. This I think Pirsig saw
and is the reason he did not follow it up.
Perhaps it is a showstopper, but Quality is a universe different
from SOM's. Remember the relativity analogue? If a person from the
Newtonian-Euclidian platform asks what STRAIGHT measuring rod space
curves in relation to, the answer is "mu"! To move from these two
frames of reference one has to use a set of equations (the Lorenz
transformation), but as relativity works well the physicists could
not care less about the seemingly inconsistency. Quality is the
mother of all relativity, but the SOM-MOQ transformation procedures
haven't yet been formulated, and we struggles with "MOQ's curvature
of reality compared to straight reality".
Look to the Stritz-Steve discussion. Martin hopes to find THE
argument that will convince Steve and provide his smooth transition
between the two metaphysical platforms, but the problem with
Steve is that he won't admit that he occupies any platform at all:
he thinks he views reality undistortedly (I refer to Mark's wise
words here). I think we should resign from that effort, and rather
try to create something similar to the Lorenz transformation.
My version of the "all things of all levels" question. To any
level the level(s) above are not recognized, and the (values of)
the lower ones are seen only as bad or good own value. To the
Inorganic level everything is matter. To Biology everything is friend
or foe to Life. To Society everything is pro or con to the common
cause (a person completely absorbed by it is willing to sacrifice
EVERYTHING) and - finally - to Intellect everything is good or bad
ideas.
Did I clarify or did I make a "strawman"?
Bo.
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com 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 - 16:42:25 CEST