Jorge: I am inclined to say that. Energy is not at
all much like DQ. Energy, as opposed to DQ, can be
precisely formulated in terms of mathematical
equations.
Ron:
And much like quality may only be measured by virtue of the form it
Takes or the object it refers to.
Jorge:
DQ like Truth or Beauty or Experience, can
not. Would that make me a SOMist?
Ron:
Perhaps, you are viewing most of my statements
>From SOM terms. Truth beauty experience are every bit as vague
As life and mind. As a matter of fact they refer to the same things.
Thought is energy, may thought be measured?
Jorge:
Energy becomes esoteric and "unknown" only outside
Physics, notably when people goes around selling
stones loaded with 'positive energy' which can
counteract the 'negative energies' of the body.
Ron:
Talk about SOMist.
Ron prev: I think even Pirsig bridges the concept of
energy Or force that binds, as value, as preference.
And this is where I form my concepts.
Jorge: I find this part of Pirsig's a bit weak. To
say that positively charged particles and negative
ones converge towards each other because they have 'a
preference' for being together rather than separated,
is to use anthropomorphic language.
Ron:
All language is anthropomorphic language. It refers to human
Understanding of observable phenomena
Ron: "When Pirsig stated that reality is composed of
patterns of value, every
Last bit. He meant every last bit. This fits in with
what I know about
Physics which isn't extensive, but I like to think I
have halfway Decent familiarity with it. I try to read
up".
Jorge: I seem to recall that we disagreed on this
point before and we keep disagreeing. Physics does not
mention Value at all,
Ron:
Physics is nothing but value
Jorge:
except in the context of the
value of x or the value of G in this or that equation;
Ron:
Equations represent observable phenomena, mix vinegar with baking soda
and experience the value
Of the two.
Jorge:
Pirsig said as much when attacking Science because it
shows little concern for studying values (which
shouldn't be taken to imply that Science is
value-less). Whether value is structured or not into
"patterns of value" is of no concern of Physics.
Hence, I cannot grasp what do you mean when saying
that the notion of "reality being composed of patterns
of value fits in with what I know of Physics".
Ron:
Hence, I should say you wouldn't if you do not understand
Molecular structure.
Jorge:
Something that puzzles me in this and other
discussions here, is what I'd call an ambivalent
attitude towards Science. Ambivalent in the sense of,
on one hand, attacking Science for being too objective
(too 'square') on the other hand borrowing,
selectively, from Science whatever concepts may seem
to fit in. Under the premise that MOQ displaced or
replaced the so-called SOM, why not leave Physics (the
best example of SOM) alone in its corner?
Ron;
If you do not see how Quantum Physics relates to MoQ theory
Then this discussion is going to go nowhere.
Ron: Measurement and number would run on forever
unless they are limited and rounded.
Jorge: to which I very much agree.
Ron:
Hey, what do you say we end this discussion on that note.
In agreement of at least one statement. Thanks Jorge.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
