Ant McWatt (ant11@liverpool.ac.uk)
Wed, 21 Jan 1998 07:40:41 +0100
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 23:12:27 -0600 clark
<clark@netsites.net> wrote:
> Plat and LS,
> Sitting here and studying the Principles of Quality by
> studying the mail, I came to the realization that I had
> not attempted to answer your question to me about time.
> Time is not a logical absurdity. It is the consequence of
> the action of gravity on energy...etc.
Dear Ken,
I have recently been discussing the MOQ and time with a
friend of mine recently so I thought you might be
interested in the material below:
Anthony`s comments on Eric`s e-mails "flat earther", "more", and "more brief
thoughts" September 1st 1997 (document part a).
MOQ & Time
A good question. You`re right in assuming that the MOQ & time is not
discussed (at any great depth anyway) in LILA (which I certainly hope you`ve
finished by now). I think they are related in the following ways:
Firstly, as the MOQ is meant to be an analysis of all reality, time can`t be
outside it. This may sound tautological but it is not logical to say that time
being an aspect of reality, lies outside this reality; modern physics certainly
thinks time is an integral part of the universe and the problem lies in working
out how it relates to the rest of reality.
As with many entities, there are two aspects of time in the MOQ, the Dynamic
and the static.
The Dynamic aspect is what Northrop would say is a "concept of intuition": that
is to say the immediately sensed perception that events in our experience
happen in succession.
The static aspect of time is what Northrop would say is a "concept of
postulation": this is the intellectual constructions (theoretical) of time which is
why I mentioned Kant, Einstein and the quantum theorists together when
discussing it. The most recent intellectual theories about time perceive it
as having an external and independent aspect as well as an internal one.
This is where Kant went wrong with his "a priori" theory and is what is classed
now as "space-time" by such people as Feynman and Hawking.
Previous intellectual constructions of time up to the 20th century were
absolute; that is to say people thought that when bodies moved or forces acted
there was no affect on space or time. Einstein`s theory of general relativity
showed this wasn`t true and that time did in fact have an independent
existence; as Hawking says on page 38 of "A Brief History of Time":
"in general relativity it became meaningless to talk about space and time as
being outside the limits of the universe".
The MOQ says all of reality flows from Dynamic Qualiity and that everything
we perceive is some type of (temporary) static pattern. This means that
space-time evolved as an early static inorganic pattern along with the laws of
physics and the particles they produced. This means that space-time itself is
a static pattern that will one day dissolve back into Dynamic Quality. This is
consistent with the "Big bang" view of the evolution of the universe because
this view states that space-time was created by the big bang and evolved as
the structure of space and time that we now experience everyday.
Pirsig had the following to say on the above (in a letter
addressed to me on October 6th 1997). It is especially
important to note where he points out the part where I
mention in my paper that the Dynamic aspect of time as
being a "concept of intuition" is not strictly correct:
>
> "What Northrop says is correct but I wouldn`t call it a
> Dynamic aspect. It`s important to keep all `concepts` out
> of Dynamic Quality. Concepts are always static. Once they
> get into Dynamic Quality they`ll overrun it and try to
> present it as some kind of a concept itself. I think it`s
> better to say that time is a static intellectual concept
> that is one of the very first to emerge from Dynamic
> Quality. That keeps Dynamic Quality concept-free."
>
> "The MOQ really has no problem with time. The MOQ starts
> with the source of undifferentiated perception itself as
> the ultimate reality. The very first differentiation is
> probably `change`. The second one may be `before and
> after`. From this sense of `before and after` emerge more
> complex concepts of time."
>
> "Time is only a problem for the SOM people because if time
> has none of the properties of an object then it must be
> subjective. And if time is subjective that means Newton`s
> laws of acceleration and many other laws of physics are
> subjective. Nobody in the scientific world wants to allow that."
>
> "All this points to a huge fundamental metaphysical difference
> between the MOQ and classical science: The MOQ is truly
> empirical. Science is not. Classical science starts with
> a concept of the objective world - atoms and molecules - as
> the ultimate reality. This concept is certainly supported
> by empirical observation but it is not the empirical
> observation itself."
>
> "Poincare`s paradox occurs because concepts are the most
> ephemeral static patterns of all. If you mistakenly call
> one of these concepts `ultimate reality`, then ultimate
> reality becomes ephemeral too. Thus classical scientific
> reality keeps changing all the time as scientists keep
> discovering new conceptual explanations."
>
>
Well, I hope the above will be helpful to you, Ken.
I look forward to hearing your (or anyone else`s in the LS
for that matter)comments on this ; especially any ideas you
may have on the related subject of "space".
Best Wishes,
Anthony.
-- 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