IN THIS LETTER (OF RESIGNATION) BO ADDRESSES GLOVE AND THE
"OBSERVATION" ISSUE MAINLY, BUT HAVE A WORD FOR ROGER AND PAUL IN THE
END .....AND A PS FOR CIONA.
For GLOVE who wrote:
> I guess I have a rather silly question, but how would we know "something"
> happens if we don't experience it in some way? Be it actual observation or
> communicated observation of another, how would we know? A meteor striking
> the moon is indeed an event, but if it is not observed by anyone, how would
> we even know it happened? Observing the crater is an observation, so thats
> out. How do you know something happens without observing it or being told of
> its occurence?
> Bodvar brought up the tree falling in the forest again, which I remember we
> discussed months ago. The whole idea behind the koan is to realize sound is
> experiential. This is an enormously enlightening notion to come to
> realization of. Either we hear the sound, or a sound is communicated to us
> in an unambiguous way, or there is no experiential event known as sound.
> There is no Quality Event without experience. If there is no experiencer, no
> observer, there is no experience.
> There is no way around this that I can see, and the Metaphysics of Quality
> does not offer an answer that I have found as yet, unless we conveniently
> ignore the nature of reality.
[I see that there has been a few rounds of exchange since Magnus'
entry and your reply, but I'll keep this very general].
We are into the most difficult philosophical terrain possible (it
would have sent Kant and Descartes reeling :-)) and it is extremely
hard to find formulations that conveys how the MOQ takes leave of the
SOM, but as this is of outmost importance I will try to elaborate on
Magnus' postulating "observation" by the four Q-levels to which you
commented as above.
Starting with your closing words about "the nature of reality", I
don't think there is any such natural (objective) reality outside of
experience. Perhaps this is exactly what you say, but it sounds
like SOM's idealistic side that relies on a subject to affirm
objective existence, and the first subject relies on another to
affirm its own reality. The SOM that has fabricated these quandaries
and the quantum riddles is just one in a series. You spoke about a
leap of faith, but as Magnus pointed out; ALL metaphysical systems
are founded on faith.
No, there is no objective reality (any more than a subjective) it is
now becoming clear that already the sense organs "edit" the
inorganic information. It has previously been thought that
this filtering is done by the human mind, but the sense organs of all
living things are minds of their own (there was once a reference to
a book or something " What the eye tells the frog"). What it
cooks down to is that all living things know biological values, we
needn't other telling us that pain hurts (it helps though :-)).
At the next quality level the biological sense experience is
re-filtered through another experience sieve. If social value is
present - as I claim - at a pre-human, pre-language stage one can say
that sense value is overridden; bodily damage and pain are forgotten
if the offspring, pack or tribe is endangered. Language added a
new depth: sights, for instance that of a shining disk in the night
sky (that in a wolf signals an urge to howl), became an almighty
goddess.
Finally the Intellect filters the socially filtered experience to
align to a new value standards, and only here does knowing in
(y)our sense occurs. These level transitions aren't immediate, the
said night sky sights as gods were at first merely doubted then
slowly objectified and studied as such.
Conclusion: In this sense intellect creates intellect reality and in
the very same sense all experience levels create their respective
realities. I haven't said anything about the Inorganic level, but
deduced from the above it follows that the first value/experience
does so at its own plane. Matter is chaos filtered through the
inorganic sieve. Magnus spoke about the moon and a meteor "observing"
each other and thereby creating inorganic reality, but this may have
intellectual overtones, I prefer the "simple" original Dynamic
Quality creating realities.
For ROGER who wrote:
> Magnus subsequently agreed with this and added some valueable insights that
> the quantum event was just one level of QE , which I of course agreed with.
> For the record, the thread got kinda messy with all the insults tossed into
> otherwise good posts, but as some of you try to blacklist Struan, I would
> appreciate it if you would not rewrite my portion of history ..however
> obviously undeserving of value it might have been.
> In protest, I am going to leave all of you out of my prayers for one night.
> Now behave!
Point taken. I am only human even if I try to sound like Moses
down from the mountain :-) The amount of mail is now so huge that
who started threads and who said what is difficult to follow. For
example in searching for the above mentioned "frog's eye" up came a
lot of splendid highly relevant messages by your hand. It eats me
that letters that in themselves - if you and I had kept up a private
exchange - would have marked milestones (Platt's good words) are
quickly sinking into oblivion. But alas, what once filled all "media"
of - say - ancient Greece is now one single line in history books,
not to speak of the countless events that weren't part of our history
- not of the human history - unheard of. No wonder that the
Subject-Object metaphysics in which reality starts with the human
"mind" drives us crazy. And to me - the relief from this - is the
attraction of the MOQ.
PS. I felt the effect of being left out of your prayer.
For PAUL who wrote:
> Bo, i believe you one of the smartest contributers to this mailing list,
> so i was sadly taken a back by your seemingly casual comment:
> "The "travel" part is a little too SciFi,"
> Since Mary Shelley first recreated Prometheus, Science Fiction as been a
> useful and accepted literary and philosophical tool for examining the
> intricacies and paradoxes of the human condition. Whether we are
> speaking of alien cultures as a way to step back and objectively view
> our own culture (see: Ray Bradbury), or androids as an ethical acid test
> of exactly what makes us human (see: Phillip K. Dick), or predicting how
> future advances in our science will effect the cultural evolution of our
> race and self perception (see: Arthur C. Clarke), SciFi can guide us
> closer to the true nature of Life, the Universe, and Everything (see:
> Douglas Adams)
....snip....
Thanks Paul. Sorry for having disappointed you, but as said
it was just a casual comment. I do look forward to discuss the things
you bring up in your interesting mail .......at the Lila Squad
preferably. I don't have the capacity to keep up the MD membership
any longer.
Bodvar
PS for CIONA who wrote:
> I'd like to write more about cognitive science/consciousness and the MOQ -
> I think Bodvik's hint that Quality and a fundamental consciousness are
> equal spoke volumes, and David's post on being "in the zone" would fit in
> well. But more on this later, perhaps? It's getting a little too late here
> for me to be able to think coherently (although the 'blue moon' tonight is
> beautiful).
If Bodvik is me (I really liked that :-) Thanks. The excerpts from
the "Philosophy in the Flesh" demonstrates a keen understanding of
what is at stake. I have often said that the Subject-Object
Metaphysics is Pirsig's greatest achievement!! That is, once SOM is
identified half the job is done, so his effort is obviously starting
to take effect. But where do Lakoff and Johnson go from there? The
quotations don't bode too well, but I'll try to get hold of that book
to see for myself. Generally. I have always wondered why Pirsig is so
(I lack the expression) overlooked. Contemporary philosophy is like
Jews at the Wailing Wall (no offence Jonathan) banging their
foreheads at the SOM but refusing to look up and see the clear
Quality sky above. Is it too simple? No more psycho-physical
mumbo-jumbo of how thoughts make it across the self-inflicted
chasm to make bodies move. No more search for sites of
consciousness in Hammeroff "tubulae" or Zohar's "Einstein-Bose
condensate". Yes, I think so and it is possibly a real danger. Look
to "Bodvik", I was once a keen reader of all kinds of weird-sounding
books and articles, after meeting Pirsig I have become a sloth
finding as much satisfaction in tinkering with my car as visiting
libraries......when not painting that is!!!
See you at the LS
Bodvar
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
