MD Reality and observation

[David Buchanan]

Rich, Roger, Platt and Y'all: As I start this post I wonder if it can
really be done. And I wonder if I can persuade you without putting you
to sleep or pissing you off? I beg you to indulge me. 

There are a lot of different issues involved in this discussion. But I
think there is one basic confusion that has prompted so many questions
and disagreements. I think Platt and others have fused questions of
perception with ontological questions. This is further confounded by the
introduction of issues in the philosophy of science. To be fair,
epistemology, ontology and theories of knowledge are all related and
integrated in any good metaphysic, but in this case I think they've been
mixed up in a way that leads to a lot of misconceptions. I think the
trick is to seperate the issues. Make these aspects of the MOQ clear and
distinct, then show how they are integrated into the whole picture. Its
really tough. It complicated and there's this strange desire to say
everything at once. Please bear with me.

Pirsig wants to get rid of subject/object metaphysics, and he wants to
rid the world of the fictional little editor behind the eyes, but that
ought not be construed to mean that your existence is in doubt. He's
simply trying to get us to re-imagine the world and ourselves. His MOQ
re-builds us from the ground up, so to speak. Each healthy individual is
a collection of static patterns of value from each of the four levels, a
unique culture of one. 

As beings with intellectual capabilities, we have thoughts and ideas and
ways to classify everything in the phenomenal world. And its perfectly
legitimate to claim that there is a difference between our concepts and
the thing in itself. But again, this ought not be construed to mean that
the "object" of perception has no real existence, or that its existence
depends on our perceptions. It just a re-imagining. In the MOQ there are
no claims about ultimate reality, its just a better map. It's a better
way to explain our perceptions, conceptions and place in the world. 

PHENOMENAL REALITY is nothing but static patterns of value. We're apart
of that reality and are phenomenal too. We exist as a material being in
time and space. This is the inorganic part of us which evolved long
before humans came along to have ideas about it or perceptions of it.
BUT - and here is one of the parts that may confuse - the inorganic
level evolved thru a series of Quality events. We could also say the
material universe evolved thru direct experience or by direct contact
with dynamic quality. There is no level below the inorganic so it is in
a odd postion with respect to DQ. That's what I meant when I said that
subatomic particles exist on the cusp of reality. There is nothing to
come between such a basic building block and the primordial DQ. It is a
static pattern of reality upon which everything else is based and it can
endure for billions of years in a steady state, and yet if it is given
the opportunity it will make a "choice". Our scientific observations
simply give it the chance to choose, particle or wave?

Very complex atoms can be unstable enough to decay. In this sense they
are making choices about weather or not to decay. They're having
experiences on their own level and have been provided a chance to make a
choice by nature instead of us. You can hear the fluctuating rate of
radioactivitiy in any bad sci-fi moive. It sounds like a rushing river
of radio static. We can determine the rate of decay. We can determine
the half life of any substance, but we can never tell WHICH atoms will
choose to decay. The rate is only predictable in the long term, we never
know when a particular atom changes or why. It decides based on its'
experience. This is what Magnus? was getting at by saying a meteor can
"experience" the moon as well as we can.

This is just an example, but on the tinest scale all our certainty
disappears and we can see dynamic Quality at work, we can see that even
"matter" has a life and a will of its own. The paper "SODV" is
interesting because it hints at the mysterious inner workings of basic
things that seem so stable on the macro level. All this is aimed at
making a single point. The inorganic level depends on experience for its
existence and evolution, but it DOESN'T DEPEND ON OUR PERCEPTIONS FOR
ITS EXISTENCE. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Our perceptions depend
on their existence. Our perceptions are also dependent on the biological
and social levels too. Our perceptions are are conducted, at least
consciously, at the intellectual level. Obviously, subatomic structures
experience a reality completely different than our own. In fact,
inorganic patterns of time and space are the very stage upon which we
live. 

I think this is where part of the confusion lies. The MOQ's whole
ontological scheme, the four static levels evolving dymanically, is
based on experience. But its based on a broader and deeper meaning of
that word and it goes way beyond what we think of as experience, namely
our human experiences and observations. In the MOQ even atoms have
experiences, if fact it pretty much describes reality as a verb. Its an
infinite series of quality events, of direct experiences that leaves
phenomenal reality in its wake. Its an infinite dance of freedom.
Experience in this sense is built into the very fabric and process of
reality. The epistemological issues are certainly tied in to this whole
scheme, but that doesn't mean they are the same issues. The question of
our perceptions, of our human experience,  is a distinctly different
matter.

Unlike the inorganic level, the biological level is not directly in
contact with Dynamic Quality except at Quality events. Otherwise the
experiences of bio patterns are mediated through the inorganic level.
Matter, time and space are reality for the bio level. We can recognize
this in our own sense organs. As a biological organism with a central
nervous system our eyes tell us something about the size, shape and
color of other static patterns, but that's a far cry from our social
level values or intellectual descriptions. What I mean is that not even
basic sensory perceptions can be counted as direct experience. Even the
second level of reality is once removed from direct contact with DQ. The
inorganic level stands in ints way, so to speak. The social level is yet
another step removed from its source of being. Its reality is mediated
through two levels. The intellect, in case you haven't guessd by now, is
removed from direct experience by that third layer of phenomenal
reality, by that third level of static patterns. This is how questions
of our perceptions are tied in with the overall scheme of the MOQ.
Epistemologically speaking, our perceptions are indirect. They are
heavily mediated through all the layers of reality that preceded the
intellect in historical evolution. (Oh, please don't pull out that tired
old quote again. It makes no sense by itself.) Again, except at the
Quality events. At the intellectual level QE are represented by genius,
creativity, new thoughts and insights. QEs are always creative, but the
kind of creature depends on the level of the static patterns involved in
the event. QEs result in new elelments, new life forms, new cultures,
and new principles depending on the level of evolution involved. We need
the static patterns to contain the force of DQ, to mark its growth and
progress, to continue building reality. There is a form and structure
and rightness to the social and intellectual patterns even though they
are invisible and not material objects. They're real as rocks. And so I
think its important for us, on the intellectual level, to make sure its
all in working order. I mean we ought not construe Pirsig's many truths
provisionality as catch-all endorsement of every fool notion that ever
got into a person's head. Just as an organism can be sick, an idea can
be wrong. Both can prevent further growth and evolution on their
respective levels. 

Its like Rich said, "the intellectual level is one fourth" of phenomenal
reality, but experience is common to the whole shebang. Experience
creates reality and our perceptions are a part of that reality, the top
part. Pop tart anyone?

Thanks for your time,
David B.


MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]