Platt Holden
Sun, 15 Aug 1999 10:09:39 -0700
Hi Roger, David, Rich and Group:
ROGER:
Let’s dig into quantum interpretation and the MOQ. My only warning
is that I disagree fundamentally with reductionist approaches that
subatomic relationships are representative of higher level
relationships
DAVID:
Problems in the Philosophy of Science are different than
metaphysical questions in the same way that cops are different than
judges. They go together. They're both part of the same process,
but if we confuse one with the other or make their roles
interchangeable, we've got serious problems. . . I'm saying that
there is a huge difference between physics and metaphysics, just
like there’s a difference between handcuffs and legal procedures
PLATT:
It’s my impression that the objections Roger and David raise were
answered by Pirsig in his paper, SUBJECTS, OBJECTS, DATA
AND VALUES. He explained how the MOQ relates to the
Copenhagen Interpretation (it fits) and fused the philosophy of
science with the MOQ rather well I thought. In fact, wasn’t the
purpose of the paper to close the metaphysical gap between
science and the humanities and to show there wasn't much
difference between physics and metaphysics?
DAVID:
Since the word “Lila” means the eternal cosmic dance, I've got no
problem with “eternal flux" as a metaphor for DQ.
DAVID:
So yes it is all Quality, but there are important distinctions to be
made between the two kinds, static and Dynamic. It's the eternal
dance between them that concerns us.
PLATT:
A minor point, but I think the "eternal flux" metaphor applies better to
the eternal dance between static and Dynamic Quality than to DQ
alone. It takes two to tango--and to flux.
RICH:
Do any platypi get stepped on when we say that “Quality is One,
Undivided?" This means that any distinction between "static”' and
“Dynamic” is ultimately false, though useful. Things and thoughts
(reality) this way is MORE OR LESS Dynamic, or static (-stable-), if
you like? Quality as shades, degrees, a continuous spectrum ...
rather than a dualism. Does this sound good?
PLATT:
Sounds good to me if you’re looking at experience from the MOQ
viewpoint which sees things as various shades of value rather than
the absolutes of black and white. Logic, however, is built on the hard
distinction between A and not A. So it's mighty hard to consistently
apply the MOQ outlook in language, philosophy and life where the
prospect of absolute death motivates so much behavior. The
dichotomy between “ultimately false though useful” opens a
wonderful avenue for future discussion about whether or not the
MOQ is ultimately "useful."
DAVID:
Each level is NOT INDEPENDENT from its parent level.
PIRSIG:
"An excellent analogy to the INDEPENDENCE OF THE LEVELS,
Phaedrus thought is the relation of hardware to software in a
computer." LILA, Chap. 12 (emphasis added).
PLATT:
In Chapter 12, Pirsig goes on at some length about how the levels
are independent from one another, contradicting much of David's
thesis of level "mediation." ("Mediation" isn't IMHO any more suited
to the context than "buffered” because it conjures up images of cigar
smoking management and labor sitting around a bargaining table
trying to “mediate” an agreement.)
It's true that science isn't independent of the social level, but science
isn't a level. It has it's feet in the biological and social levels but the
rest is swallowed up by the intellectual level. And while there's an
evolutionary relationship between levels, the relationship ends there.
As Pirsig says in Chap. 12, "These patterns have nothing in
common except the historic evolutionary process that created all of
them."
ROGER (REPEAT):
My only warning is that I disagree fundamentally with reductionist
approaches that subatomic relationships are representative of
higher level interrelationships.
PLATT:
While the context of Roger's statement is different than the
independence of levels discussion above, his point is basically the
same. You can't explain life by looking at rocks, you can't explain
mind by looking at brains, you can't explain art by looking at paints.
Similarly, we can’t explain higher mathematics by looking at
“mediations” between the levels nor can we explain the MOQ by
looking at quantum physics. I'm satisfied to conclude that because
the MOQ "harmonizes" with the discoveries of the quantum world it's
a better philosophy than if it ignored or denied those discoveries.
Platt
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]