Krimel --
You leave me wondering which meaning of phenomena you intend. In physics it means events in the external world. In philosophy it refers to purely mental events. Which do you mean or is the confusion intentional? You say that '"patterns" are phenomena,' I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
A phenomenon is an observable fact or event, "an object known through the senses rather than by thought or nonsensual intuition." In the macro world of direct experience, objects and events have quantitative attributes that are measurable in units of size, mass, energy, and velocity. They are also exhibit some degree of predictability, in relation to other events, based on the laws of cause-and-effect. Science continues to document objective knowledge about physical reality, its components, dynamics, and properties, the sum total of which constitutes our universal understanding of existence.
Recent research into quantum physics poses some problems that are addressed in Pirsig's SODV paper. They concern the inability to measure all parameters of quantum events, the apparent affect of the observer on the events, and the "split-screen" effect whereby quanta entities appear to behave as both particles and wave-bundles simultaneously.
For a complete discussion of the 'Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics', check out the Stanford Encyclopedia website at http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/qm-copenhagen/: Following is a relevant excerpt.
"In order to separate the object from the subject itself, the experiential subject must be able to distinguish between the form and the content of his or her experiences. This is possible only if the subject uses causal and spatial-temporal concepts for describing the sensorial content, placing phenomena in causal connection in space and time, since it is the causal space-time description of our perceptions that constitutes the criterion of reality for them. Bohr therefore believed that what gives us the possibility of talking about an object and an objectively existing reality is the application of those necessary concepts, and that the physical equivalents of 'space,' 'time,' 'causation,' and 'continuity' were the concepts 'position,' 'time,' 'momentum,' and 'energy,' which he referred to as the classical concepts."
How does one "objectivize" anything?
This is an epistemological question which Pirsig has not addressed, allowing his readers to conclude that objects are either a cosmic subset of Quality or "static patterns" derived from an "intellectual level". I maintain that Existence is fundamentally a Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy created by the negation of Difference or Nothingness. In brief, Sensibility actualizes the subjective (individuated) self as value-awareness, and Otherness becomes its value object. Because primary value-sensibility is undifferentiated and pre-intellectual, it must be made relational (as being-aware) to the cognizant organism. Starting with the brain and sensory system, the subjective self becomes aware by integrating Value as differentiated phemenona (objects) arranged in space and interacting in time. The "substance" of phenomena is perceived as "Being", but its essence is Value that is incrementally restored to the negated self in the process of experience.
This is the best I can do by way of explanation in a single post, but it should give you a general idea of how I view objectivization.
Any other questions, Krimel? Essentially yours, Ham 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/
