Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Wed, 21 Jan 1998 07:01:45 +0100
Hi Diana and TLS,
See my comments below:
Diana McPartlin wrote:
>
> Hi Doug and squad
>
> All you have shown in any of these quotes is that Dynamic Quality
> cannot
> be determined.
Diana,
I respectfully disagree. See especially this quote on dynamic forces at
the molecular level:
"What the Dynamic force had to invent in order to move up the molecular
level and stay there was a carbon molecule that would preserve its
limited Dynamic freedom from inorganic laws and at the same time resist
deterioration back to simple compounds of carbon again. A study of
nature shows the Dynamic force was not able to do this but got around
the problem by inventing two molecules: a static molecule able to resist
abrasion, heat, chemical attack and the like; and a Dynamic one, able to
preserve the subatomic indeterminacy at a molecular level and 'try
everything' in the ways of chemical combination."
It shows that DQ invents and latches SPoVs which predict certain
results. At the same time the future of those SPoVs is uncertain in the
ubiquitous DQ.
Each of the other paragraphs requires some stretching, but they too lend
credence to MoQUP. And I reread your 18Jan98 19:42:31 email again and I
still think it argues FOR MoQUP. Somehow we are NOT in harmony...but we
shall get there one way or t'other...:-)
Doug.
>
> Your uncertainty principle would seem to say that we can predict
> static
> quality but we can't predict Dynamic Quality.
Diana,
I do not think I said this. I hope I did not.
Isn't it clear that we CANNOT predict SQ before it latches, but that we
CAN predict SOME of the consequent patterns of SPoVs after they latch
(and some we cannot because of DQ)?
Help me. What am I missing here?
Isn't it also clear that DQ is both predictable and not? We know,
because of DQ, change is certain. But we do not know WHAT change is
certain.
Again, help me. What am I missing here? To use Ken's phrase, "Am I
nuts?" :)
Doug.
=====
Diana,
I'll leave the rest of this alone until we get past the above issues:
> If that's all it is then
> why not incorporate it into the Dynamic-static principle? If you can
> separate Quality into a part that is deterministic and a part that
> isn't
> then there is no contradiction. Why not just explain what the
> deterministic and non-deterministic parts are? It's far simpler than
> asserting that Quality both can and cannot be determined at the same
> time. And, again, this is not the same paradigm as the wave-particle
> phenomenon. Waves and particles are not two distinct concepts within
> light that have different characteristics. There are the same thing.
> DQ
> and SQ, however *are* two distinct concepts within Quality that have
> different characteristics. They are not the same thing.
>
> I'm quite happy to accept that DQ can neither be defined nor
> determined.
> To try and fit DQ into a deterministic pattern is to try and fit it
> into
> a SOM cause and effect pattern, and of course you can't do it.
>
> But DQ can still be experienced and consequently it can still be
> known.
>
> chp 32:
>
> "From the static point of view the whole escape into Dynamic Quality
> seems like a death experience. It's a movement from something to
> nothing. How can nothing be any different from death? Since a Dynamic
> understanding doesn't make the static distinctions necessary to answer
> that question, the question goes unanswered. All the Buddha could say
> was "See for yourself"."
>
> Pirsig talks about a "Dynamic understanding", this shows that he
> believes that DQ can be understood. But this understanding "doesn't
> make
> the static distinctions necessary to answer that question", in other
> words this understanding can't be explained in terms of static
> concepts,
> ie words. All the Buddha can say is "see for yourself". In other
> words,
> the Buddha can't tell you what it is, but he can point the way and you
> can experience it for yourself, and then you'll understand.
>
> Diana
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
-- "It is not the facts but the relation of things that results in the universal harmony that is the sole objective reality."Robert M. Pirsig, --on Poincaré's assessment of classical reality, in --'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,' p. 241, Bantam (paperback), 28th edition, 1982.
-- 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 - 16:42:38 CEST