Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Tue, 9 Dec 1997 06:36:34 +0100
Dave wrote in response to my >>
> > 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?
>
> I'm out of my element here in seeing the consequences. I understand the
> relatively analogue, agree that Quality is the mother of all relativity, but
> don't see why Pirsig would bring up Bohr and try to relate his work to Bohr's
> if he was uncomfortable with where that comparison could or would lead. I also
> don't see the threat to MoQ.
Sorry for messing things up Dave. You have all the right to ask why
I suddenly won't recognize the SODV (Brussels) paper, and even
sound as doubting Pirsig's way of applying his own ideas.
It stems from the one and only scare I have had about the
viability of the Quality metaphysics. You see, in my essay I had used
the map/terrain metaphor and claimed that the Subject/Object
metaphysics is a map out of touch with reality's terrain, while the
MOQ corresponds to it. But, then, what is the REAL "terrain"?. I went
cold, it looked like good old objectivity of SOM.
I then got the Relativity vs Newtonian physics idea from a
quality correspondent with a doctor degree in physics (who I had
hoped would join the LS, but has (wisely) refused). This satisfied me
greatly.
The above is no threat to the MOQ - not the least - but I felt
that the SODV paper got into the same tangle. Perhaps not, I now have
to admit. When checking (in LILA) I see that he doesn't use the
map/reality analogy that way, but speaks of different map
PROJECTIONS. He says for instance that the polar projection looks
confusing, but is the only one to use if you are at a pole (page 103
Bantam Press).
> I know basically nothing about quantum mechanics but I've heard that the
> biggie is that the very act of observing quanta seems to have an effect on
> whether they appear or not. So the observer is actually effecting the data. Is
> this not analogous to what naturalists have known about observations of wild
> animals? Is this not what Pirsig says about anthropologists and Indians? I
> thought one of the points of MoQ was just that. That every individual's
> observation is relative to the static patterns that the observer brings with
> him. Scientists cannot claim pure "objectivity" in so much as they bring
> "subjectivity" to the table every time. But in MoQ those paradoxs disappear
> because all there is is these four static patterns of values which interact
> with each other by this set of rules and the potential that these patterns can
> evolve by interaction with Dynamic Quality.
>
> By using the Quality map we can develop a understanding of reality that
> surpases or subsumes "objective" reality in so much as it acknowledges that
> every reality has a by our old map a potentially "subjective" component. That
> old "subjective" component is every much as real as the old "objective" so
> much so it makes the division meaningless. Proof of that is the mere act of
> observing a quanta or a wolf can effect the data. So we must subsume this
> old pattern into this new four level pattern which acknowledges both
> components are a potential part of any reality and must be treated under a new
> set of rules to be understood. Or am I way off in left field?
No you are not way off. This is the very essence of how the MOQ
transforms the subjectiveness and objectiveness of Substance
Metaphysics (P. sometimes calls it that). Also, I will have a closer
look at the SODV paper, it has not been studied since the above
"doubt" occurred.
Bear with me.
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