Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Thu, 18 Jun 1998 20:26:31 +0100
Jonathan and LS
Theo wrote:
"I'm convinced that the language is available
to us to achieve recognition without the need to distort it."
To which Jonathan replied:
"I largely agree, but think that finding the right language is not a
simple task. This is what frustrated Bohr about the definitions of
Quantum Mechanics. But what I take some issue with is the possibility to
state "without the need to distort". IMO *distortion* is always
involved - but I'd prefer a word with less negative connotations. Any
organization of ideas or pattern formation is a type of distortion."
Perhaps "confuse" or "obfuscate" should be substituted for distort. I agree with
you that there is an impreciseness inherent within everyday language. This is
often due to the presumption of prior knowledge and agreement of definitions of
the subject under discussion. Where this is not the case or the subject is new
or controversial then those in discussion need to be more careful in their usage
of the language. There is also the issue of the contextual model within which a
discussion or debate of a subject takes place. One of Bohrs greatest problems
in expressing his ideas was that he had to work within the confines of Logical
Positivism, where Metaphysics was considered, virtually, a swear word. When
a system of thought such as Logical Positivism attempts to reduce this subject
- philosophy - to 'mere' analysis of language, it will not take seriously any
explanation which comes within the boundaries of philosophy, especially where
that explanation involves a new Metaphysics. Bohr could not overcome the
bigotry of Logical Positivism and although the extremism of this system is
largely reduced since Bohrs day, it still exists. This is something of which
Pirsig was acutely aware and from which he suffered.
When you combine the above with the knowledge that the majority of
languages did not evolve to handle discussion of difficult and/or abstract
concepts, but to convey everyday information, it is obvious that when explaining
or discussing a new Metaphysics such as MoQ we have to choose words
carefully or explain the way in which a word with an already established set of
connotations is being used. This is difficult and may be time consuming but
necessary if the message is to be understood. No-one is perfect and mistakes
will be made but where mistakes do occur, re-explanation is necessary.
Jonathan wrote:
"This is all pretty simple:-
Observed = photon
Observer = chlorophyll
But, for the chlorophyll sitting next to the primary observer:-
Observed = excited chlorophyll (the one that just absorbed the photon)
Observer = neighbouring chlorophyll
and it doesn't stop there. That's already two SO contexts WITHIN
Pirsig's inorganic level and we've only just started."
This seems to me to be an example of obfuscation. Chlorophyll is not an
observer of anything in any accepted sense. If you have a special meaning in
mind then it should be explained. As it is this is pretty much an S-O statement
within an S-O framework. A photon may be observed with the use of specially
designed equipment, as can the interaction of photon and chlorophyll. The
results can be observed at both micro and macro levels and in different ways.
You've mentioned the excitation (micro level) of the chlorophyll molecule.
Looking at what preceded the above quote from yourself there is similar
confusion.
So, when you say:
"Let's take the example of a green alga sitting in water. A quantum of
blue light (a photon) comes and is absorbed by a chlorophyll molecule.
Now that same photon has traversed millions of miles of space without
being absorbed (nothing to absorb it there) but it has also penetrated
the atmosphere and perhaps a couple of metres depth of water. It has
passed by or through huge numbers of air and water molecules, and yet
not one reacted. They all failed to even notice the passing photon."
Of course they failed to 'notice' the photon. You appear to be using an
anthropocentric view of an inorganic/organic event. If it were the case that you
were an air or water molecule with all the traits of a human then you could say
this quite validly - but this is NOT the case.
You go on:
"Water and air molecules don't recognise blue light. They don't have the
appropriate electron organisation pattern."
and you appear to use two different contexts in two consecutive sentences. If
you had written:
Water and air molecules don't REACT WITH blue light. They don't have the
appropriate electron organisation pattern.
this would have made more sense. There is more of the same in various of your
postings which leads to some confusion - for me at least.
By starting with either incorrect or unexplained premisses you end up with the
conclusion:
"This is all pretty simple:-
Observed = photon
Observer = chlorophyll
But, for the chlorophyll sitting next to the primary observer:-
Observed = excited chlorophyll (the one that just absorbed the photon)
Observer = neighbouring chlorophyll
and it doesn't stop there. That's already two SO contexts WITHIN
Pirsig's inorganic level and we've only just started."
which certainly doesn't make sense within an MoQ framework. I don't think it
makes sense within an S-O framework either.
=======================================================
Jonathan wrote:
"Q always requires an observer and an observed for its *definition*".
Pirsig himself saw this - which is why he was so reluctant to define or
properly describe Q."
Again I think this is more to do with the S-O framework within which it has to
be presumed that Quality can be observed either by one of the 5(?) senses,
some form of instrumentation/apparatus or by introspection. Quality is not
some form of thing but the reality within which we exist. It precedes any form of
S-O view or human awareness, not because it is prior to reality in any mystical
way, but because, as I said in my post regardibg DQ, it exists in a different
time-frame. The NOW that humans are aware of is a product of a number of
sensory and temporal limitations - it takes time for 'external' events to become
internal (intellectual?) events. The NOW of Quality reality (the pre-intellectual
cutting edge ...) is not subject to these limitations. So all of the changes and
events that occur within the 4 apparent levels of SQ are only static to some
degree, becoming more static as they recede into a human centred past. In
terms of Quality, there is DQ and the patterns that persist in its wake (atoms,
molecules, planets, galaxies, single-celled life-forms, multi-celled life forms,
celebrities, families, societies, universities, laws, thoughts etc.) which are
intellectualisations of recognisable patterns, which are often socialized
constructions - i.e. intellectual patterns/constructions based around or arising
from mutually agreed and accepted patterns. So, probably, the best that we
can do, as humans, is attempt to construct some model of Quality based on
the information which is available to us as 'Static' patterns of value - we are
inferring from our present to a Quality or REAL present. If we try and define
Quality based upon this then we are defining the model of Quality and NOT
Quality itself. I think Pirsig recognised this, which may be why he was reluctant
to define Quality.
When you say:
"I think it becomes a whole lot less problematic if one stresses that the
division of the system into observer vs. observed (SO) is context
dependent, not absolute.I see Pirsig's 4 levels as 4 SO contexts. The whole
problem (IMO) with classical SOM is the underlying assumption of a single
context."
It would probably be easier still if we simply considered ourselves participants
in a Quality-centred event-based reality, then we can start to get away from the
whole idea of objects, observers of objects, objective observers of objects etc. -
but possibly this is a bit too much of a "giant step for mankind". Also, if Pirsig's
4 levels are 4 SO contexts and SO is itself an incorrect or incomplete system
then don't we just end up with a splintered view of an incorrect or incomplete
system.
Jonathan, please don't think that I am accusing you of deliberately confusing or
obfuscating any of the issues that you have written about. Also, please don't be
offended if I seem to be over-critical, I just want to get the message of the MoQ
across as clearly as possible and avoid confusion over terminology and usage.
I'm sure many would accuse me of being verbose and long-winded at times,
although hopefully not too obscure. I would be more than happy for you to
criticise anything in any of my posts in whatever way you want - I wouldn't dish
it out if I couldn't take it.
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST