Hi James J. and Group:
In connection with quantum physics, James J. asked:
"But, those unperceived potentials are still 'real,' right?"
Depends I guess on how you define "real." Perhaps you've read
Paul Watzlawicks "How Real is Real?" He posits two realities. The
first has to do with the experience that is accessible to perceptual
consensus (like is it or isn't it raining outside) and scientific,
repeatable, verifiable proof. The second reality is the attribution of
meaning and value to experience, based on communication. A small
child may perceive a red traffic light as clearly as an adult, but may
not know that it means, "Stop."
Those "unperceived potentials" are real in the second sense, but not
the first. They are second-order reality. Of course, with Pirsig the
two orders of reality posited by Watzlawick go by the boards. Pirsig
introduces a whole new definition.
James J. also asked:
"Let's consider the meta-question: 'Why must there by a why?�
The answer: Because without a 'why" you couldn't ask the question.
Incidentally, are you a Roger Penrose fan? Do you buy his
argument in the "Emperor's New Mind" that, mathematically at least,
Plato's Ideals are real?
Finally, to again argue from authority (which is all I can do when it
comes to quantum physics), a long-time member of this forum
named Magnus opened my eyes to another interpretation of
quantum observation when he described it as "two patterns of value
engaged in a Quality Event." I will not presume to speak for him, but
I invite you to inquire of him further of interested in another slant on
your question about unperceived potentials. Or, perhaps he�ll
volunteer his view.
Platt
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]
