ROGER TRIES TO DESIGN AN MOQ THOUGHT EXPERIMENT THAT CAN BE USED TO ADDRESS
THE CURRENT UNRESOLVED THREADS
To All My Friends In Lila Land:
Using Horse's recent quote as an entry:
<<<<<<
Mysticism, in the sense used in many previous posts, as an
approach, is one means of moving towards DQ, but is certainly not
the only means.
This is "part" of what I mean about the balance between rationalism
and mysticism with neither superior to other but two aspects of the
same thing. It is also, I believe, part of the 99% (98, 97... going
down?) of the MOQ still to be discovered>>>>
I see a common theme in three recent threads. All three are pointing to a
messiness in part of Pirsig's definition of DQ.
1) First was the 99% Solution thread and the double definition of DQ as both
pure experience and as "pursuit of unpatterned experience" (Horse and others
actually started this thread in October)
2)The mystical 5th level thread (I can't remember who started this
thread....:-))that emerges to define static patterns around this "pursuit of
unpatterned experience", and
3) The free will thread that hinges and defines free will as "pursuit of
unpatterned experience".
See the pattern? I suggest they all point to a common problem with
terminology in Lila. And what I would like to propose is an artificial world
-- an analogy -- where we can clarify the MOQ. In a way I am going to do an
Einstein-type model where I kind of simplify the number of dimensions so that
we can wrestle with the issues better.
The question I want to answer deals with......"How exactly can you pursue
experience?" Or inversely, how would you avoid it? Running from experience
is like running from your shadow in the sunshine. If we are experience, then
we can hardly avoid ourselves now can we? No, of course not. So the key term
isn't to pursue experience, it is to pursue a type of experience, or a
quality of experience. The type of experience is clearly toward UNPATTERNED
EXPERIENCE. Though Pirsig also warns of going too far into chaos.
To illustrate the pursuit of DQ in action, I would like to first introduce
two little analogies. The "decryption device" analogy, and the "20 question"
analogy. I will then build a model universe containing elements of both.
Okay? Here we go.......
THE DECRYPTION DEVICE ANALOGY
Let's say we have a complex computer with two distinct properties:
1) A non stoppable decryption device, and
2) An encrypted message encoded into it.
Every microsecond, the random digit generator must generate a new "message"
guess. At first, the message is total chaos. It is pure dynamics, but no
message of any meaning, and no discernable pattern at all. However, after a
few thousand random generations, the program begins to recognize potential
patterns. So, what it does is hold onto these potential patterns and use
its programming to repeat some digits that appear the most patterned per its
decoding algorithm. Where it sees no pattern, it keeps generating new random
digits. The computer does this for billions and billions of times, holding
on to patterns for as long as possible, while also letting go of possible
patterns at times in the hope of discovering an even more extended or
complete message. Sometimes this is a mistake and progress is lost (the
program only allows random generation, it may need to wait billions of years
for any pattern lost to be recreated). At other times this embrace of change
is a success and huge new unrevealed portions of the message suddenly emerge.
The biggest concern with the above analogy is that it assumes an answer is
already coded into the fabric of reality. But let me now introduce my second
analogy......
20 QUESTIONS ANALOGY
Have you all played 20 questions? You know, the party game where a person
leaves the room and the remaining group chooses a thing. Upon re-entering
the room, the person must guess this thing by asking the different members of
the group questions about the "mystery thing's" Qualities.
Well, quantum physicist John Wheeler invented a twist on this game one
winter's eve. When the person left the room, John suggested that they not
choose a thing. Without telling the person that left, the group decided that
when asked a question, they could make up any answer, with only one
stipulation -- the answer must be logically consistent with every previous
answer. In other words, they were allowed to make up any answer as long as it
never contradicted a prior made-up answer. Upon the person re-entering,
everyone involved became part of the game, with no one knowing the answer
until every logical choice was given and only one thing was left that
logically fit every preceding question. The group dynamic together chose the
eventual answer, with no single person knowing it in advance, but all
agreeing on it in the end.
THE COMBINED MODEL
Now, to combine these two analogies...... Let's say that the decryption
device is not actually decoding a preset message. Instead, like the modified
20 questions, it is using its own pattern identifier and its own random
number generator to manufacture potential patterns . In other words, the
number generation/decryption combination creates patterns where none
previously existed.
Running infinitely with infinite power and an infinite digital display, what
patterns could it create over time? What universe could it develop? Oh, I
know, this is no fair because the decryption logic and the random number
generator had to be designed by someone ....right??? Maybe and maybe not, but
the key was to use this model to apply the terms of the MOQ. So here goes:
REALITY:In this model, I say that the computer is the universe. The
decryption program is the laws of nature.
QUALITY in this scenario is not a thing, it is an event. Quality is
"experience", which is analogous to the inevitable and unstoppable generation
of digits,
DQ is the undivided, constant-changing flux of number generation.
SQ is any pattern derived from the number generation. It is the logical
consistency discovered or created within the unpatterned flux of DQ. These
patterns are literally created out of the Quality Event of number generation.
YOU AND I are some of the patterns that are beginning to arise from the
chaos, though to a great extent we are really just digit-generation patterns.
We are created out of experience yet we also help create reality ourselves,
as we are part of the pattern decrypter/creator as well. We are part answer,
part question, all experience.
DEATH: Is no longer questioning. It is an end to the
decoding/questioning/number generating.
CHAOS: Is the total absence of patterns. It includes where we are unable to
find/create patterns, as well as where the patterns are lost.
HIGHER QUALITY: Is the static patterns of the universe gaining in maximum
information, gaining maximum quality. Though the answer is not predetermined,
higher quality evolution is getting closer to the answer. An answer which
we help to create.
EVOLUTION: Evolutionary advance is only gained by embracing the dynamic
chance of the number generation, though you must be cautious not to risk too
many digits of your pattern, for fear the pattern will be lost and
forgotten.....
DYNAMIC ADVANCE: Is inevitable. Even with patterns being lost, the system
always advances toward higher quality, more complex patterns
STATIC TRAPS: are respinning the same digits in a pattern where the system
always gets the similar, repeating, static answers. No advancement is
possible.
PURSUIT OF UNPATTERNED EXPERIENCE: Is avoiding static traps or dead end
pattern generation. It involves using the dynamic of unpatterned number
generation to create a more dynamic pattern.
FREE WILL: Makes sense only within sub patterns. It is a pattern choosing to
extend itself by embracing the random experience generator, and letting go of
its own static patterns (but not completely).
MYSTICISM: Is the pure revelation of experience. Of being and sensing the
number generation within your static and dynamic aspects. It includes the
experience of any new digits added to your pattern, but also any old digits
that are really refreshed with each quality event.
Using this analogy, explain the terms of the MOQ (In bold above) as best you
can. Where do you agree with me? Where am I off base? What new definitions
can be added? How can we use this model to further understand current
threads? Can you tweak this model and improve it so it works better? Does
this allow me to now explain the current concerns regarding "pursuit of
unpatterned experience"?
Please let me know your ideas on the above. In the mean time, I will look to
see if this helps me to answer some of the outstanding questions on previous
threads.
Be All Good!
Roger
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]
