Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Sat, 7 Feb 1998 05:42:57 +0100
Doug Renselle wrote:
This is great! Absolutely! We ARE seeing eye-to-eye! You describe
well and concisely differences twixt classical- and neo-scientists.
I have not read William James. I assume that if Pirsig says he and
James are on the same 'wavelength' then I can defer that in favor of
other things like this wonderful Lila Squad.
You affirmed a deferral strategy in the James quote above.
Yes, James' conscious field appears akin to DQ. My only reservation
here is that the word 'conscious' probably is human centric. We do not
know if multiversal 'consciousness' is generic. If consciousness (which
is yet undefined, I believe) corresponds to that which prefers a loop
something like this (note that a loop is a 'sort of' circle, and thus a
'sort of' wavefunction):
while dynamically interrelating all existing patterns
do loop
emerge patterns
change patterns
end loop
end while
I hope your book will explain loops and wave functions so someone like me
who lacks context of such matters can get a better grip on the concepts
involved. As of now, this old liberal arts major is pretty much out of the
loop quantum-wise.
Where patterns scale from the simplest to the most complex, then
'consciousness' is a metaphor of DQ. This requires as I conjectured
before that the simplest pattern (wavefunction, quantum system,
whatever) must be 'aware.' I believe this is true. I think the
particle (wavefunction) accelerators demonstrate this, when you take off
your SOM hat and put on your MoQ hat.
I agree completely!
Note that the above loop is consistent with the process Pirsig describes
about the genesis of an object, then a subject, then awareness, and
subsequent Quality Events, etc.
Thanks for the affirmation on quantum science. I cannot explain this to
you, but I somehow KNOW that the Mechanics of Quanta and the Metaphysics
of Quality are duals. When I test concepts by trying them in each of
the two MoQs, the concepts work. So quantum science is one of the few
(that I know of) benchmarks we have for Pirsig's MoQ.
This suggests to me that just as the discovery of the quantum established a
new level below the classical/inorganic, the discovery by Pirsig of
omnipresent Quality establishes a new level above rational/intellectual
(except Artists and mystics discovered and established this higher,
transcendent level centuries ago).
In SOMese there are no single words that capture essentially the core
realities of the two MoQs. At least I have not been able to find them.
For my book, I invented a new word which captures this idea. I will
share it when the book finally gets published. The core realities are
best encapsulated by the following terms I have found: Gestalt,
syncretize, interpenetrate, commingle, unify, integrate, etc. Sadly, no
one of these words, nor all taken together is able to capture the core
realities of the two MoQs.
I like "omnipresent" and "transcendent unity." But I agree no words can
capture core reality, which loops us back to the original Catch 32.
MoQuality core reality: You are in It and It is in You. Q=SQiDQ.
MoQuanta core reality: Quantum quality is waves (qwfs) in VES.
(The small 'i' in SQiDQ is to show interpenetration both/and commingling
of SQ and DQ. 'qwf' is a quantum wavefunction. VES is vacuum energy
space. BTW, compare the above core realities to the core reality of
SOM.)
Your quote from William James above about the conscious field is very
close to the two MoQs' core realities. James (IMO) is saying that our
consciousness is ubiquitous and interconnected.
But more than that is ubiquitous and interconnected: our whole beings!
SOM says a being's mind stops at the brain case and is connected to the
separable rest of reality via sensory peripherals. This is the
classical reductionist view.
The two MoQs say that our patterns co- and inter-modulate stasis and are
co- and inter-modulated by dynamis (using Hugo's more general terms for
SQ and DQ). Co- and inter-modulation appears in the loop above as
'change' and 'interrelating.'
Now back to the original issue on Catch 32.
The original Catch 32 is a SOM Catch. One clue is the word 'part.'
'Part' in the Catch is used to imply inclusion, but as used it carries
the SOM legacy of 'included, but still separate.'
But when you look at words themselves, when they are in 'consciousness,'
they gain the ability to intermodulate if we allow them to.
Let's try again:
Catch 32: MoQ patterns cannot completely describe reality because the
MoQ patterns we use to describe reality commingle and intermodulate the
reality we're trying to describe.
I agree with this.
I think this gets a little bit closer, but it still needs a lot more
thought.
Is this better? Is MoQ helping us move closer to a better Catch 32?
Yes, but I also think the original Catch 32 is equally expressive of the
MoQ without using MoQ lingo. Any time you recognize paradoxes inherent in
SOM rationality you take a step into MoQ-Land.
Vastly oversimplifying, I see qwfs and MoQ patterns as tiny instances of
reality. As the poets have said, when you look at a snowflake or a drop
of water, you can see the multiverse. When you listen to Bach's 30
Goldberg Variations, you can hear the whole of the DNA. And so on...
Each of us is...an instance...of reality...
Can we describe us? Pirsig says, "Yes, MoQ does, but" only
incompletely. As you averred, Platt, Kurt Goedel knew this too. Isn't
it interesting that to Pirsig it is the BIG POSITIVE. To Goedel it
is/was the BIG NEGATIVE.
Excellent point. In fact, permit me to thank you again for another great
eye-opening post!
Platt
Catch 38: Clinton can't tell the truth until he finds out what he has to
lie about.
-- 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 - 16:42:47 CEST