Curtis Burisch
Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:42:00 -0700
Hello again folks... I have just posted a separate piece on DQ and sQ, so I shan't cover the same ground twice... <snip!> ROGER WROTE: I wouldn't say I disagree yet. 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 interrelationships. CURTIS: I disagree with you, Rog. Perhaps you need to reconsider how you percieve the MOQ. The MOQ says a lot of stuff, and we have the good Pirsig to thank for that! [Thanks!] But nobody's perfect, and we should take it as a given that the MoQ will be dynamic, too. It will evolve. I regard the MoQ as a set of observations about evolution ocurring within a complex system in *any* phase-space. A phase-space is any place where variables can interact. Now, in this light, can you say that subatomic particles are not as much variables inhabiting a phase-space as the stock market or your Aunt Thelma's stockings? The specific methods employed by a successful 'variable' cannot be trans- ferred between levels of Quality -- they have to be considered in their own phase-space -- but in general, the broad rules defined by MoQ are applicable to every level. DAVID WROTE previously: 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. ROGER WROTE: This I totally disagree with. Intellectual experience is not buffered experience. CURTIS: Not buffered; but still subject to the interpretation imposed by our neuronal pathways. And not indirect, for they are complex reactions to stimuli in a complex chaotically-taut phase-space (our brains), and are themselves subject to evolution and quality judgments prior to even being called 'perceptions'. PLATT WROTE previously: I agree with Roger. Not only is intellectual experience not buffered, but we can directly perceive Dynamic Quality, as examples in Lila of the song, the heart attack, the brujo, the baby, etc. clearly illustrate. ROGER WROTE: Well David? You and Bodvar and half the squad seem to hold this belief. Platt and I and others disagree. In fact I think the intellectual level is closest to DQ and the most dynamic. CURTIS: I think I probably disagree with the lot of you (so there!), because I have differing views on what constitutes DQ and sQ -- those are in another post. However, I would agree that the intellectual level is closest to DQ, for the following reasons: 1) Evolution always takes the fastest route 2) A higher level (intellectual) always has more Dynamic Quality Events than a lower level (social) because of (1). Gotta bath the baby now... Keep it real, Curtis. 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]