Greetings Magnus and Bobby, Magnus wrote: > Hmm... Future time. I mean, the concept feels very familiar and there's no > doubt in anybody's mind about what we mean with it. But it still feels awkward > to discuss the big Q using a term that is only available in the SQ part of it. As Bobby pointed out (I think) the only way to describe the big Q is with Static (language) patterns. Since I'm most of the time a student in physics I prefere using fysical entities and terms to describe anything - maybe you prefere an other analogy. > Time, as we know it, is a static (inorganic) pattern that connects all particles > in the universe to experience the same flow of time. ... > On the other hand, if we imagine a place devoid of time, this pattern that > connects all particles to the same flow of time wouldn't exist. Each particle > would be free to move forward or backward in time just as it may move to the > right or left, up or down, ... > > It's exactly this force that connects all particles in the universe and says: > > - Reality is now! > > that is time. I guess it's the same thing you call the flow of Quality because > since reality is Quality it also says, Quality is now. ... > What I read here is that you think that static patterns does influence > future time. So, 'the not yet experienced Quality' can't be all DQ. I simply > don't think past/future is the first split of Q. SQ/DQ is something else. I don't think either that past/future is the first split, I think that experienced/not-experienced is the first split (the defined/undefined split from a personal perspective). In *normal*, everyday experience this split can be roughly cut down to a past/future split, but this was just a first approach to the experienced/not-experienced split. Maybe I should have expressed myself clearer. The fysic understanding of time can have a discussion of its own but thats not the purpose now. I understand the whole thing as folows: - The future is undefined, that is say I don't think a deterministic point of view is not defendable. - Movement of "objects" through time must be coherent, a thing can't "jump" through time. (here I have to exclude the very very small particles, so regard "normal" objects) - When the position of an object in the past is known -experienced- it is part of a static pattern. (- When the position is never measured or known at all it stays Dynamic) - DQ is completely undefined but for reality to exist it has to work on a (more or less) defined SQ, for reality to exist events must be coherent through time. - Since the position for the next instance of time must be coherent with the current position, the possibilities for the next instance are constrained by the statics of the present instance. - The past experiences of the observer influences his perception and thus future experiences. - People can verify each others experiences since they share a certain static base. - Nothing of the things we call reality are fully dynamic nor fully static but combination, the levels are defined by different amounts of DQ in the combination. - As we wander in the higher levels (closing in on pure DQ) we leave the common static base so far it becomes harder and harer to compare and verify each others experiences till in the end there is only a mystic experience whitch can't be discussed anymore. - Although the experiences of *pure* DQ may vary (D)Q is absolute and therefor One, there is one reality of Q only our perceptions of the One Q vary. (Yes, this sounds more like religion then like philosophy.) > Right, the human experience *is* very related to time. But as we're digging > deeper and deeper into the physical reality we live in - specifically quantum > physics - we're starting to see something that is not dependent on time. > Whether it is DQ or a sub-inorganic level remains to be discovered. I just started colleges quantum fysics so I can't say to understand them fully. What I understand of them is that for instance the position of a particle is undefined within a certain probability untill measured; but on the action of measuring the particle is defined to a position IT DID NOT HAVE BEFORE for at didn't have any position but only a probability. At the instance of measurement the particle crosses the defined/undefined split (when you say that measuring is a way of experiencing the position it also crosses the experienced/not-experienced split, what is the same to me although the perspective varies). I think th equantum fysics could say that the undefined particle is a form of DQ constrained by a SQ pattern -the probability function- that becomes SQ at the instance of experience, that is measurement, and will become more and more Dynamic again after it is 'let free'. I don't know for sure how quantum fysics handles time but I would say that fysically time is just I parameter for describing the position of a particle, but as I said that's a different discussion. To bobby: As far as I understand your post, you want to defend a relativistic point of view and from that point say that it is hardly possible to agree on the experience of Quality and that we better leave it altogether. By breaking down the object-subject split the MOQ leaves much room for relativists but (as said before in this group) Pirsig does not defend the subjective point of view more the objective (for then the SOM split would be sneaked in through the back door). I think the idea of one undefinable Quality can be handled very good from a mono-sophistic, or monotheistic point of view. We al might have a slightly diffenrent perception of Q but I think it is worth talking and discussing about it for in the end al personal views will be "small tracks leading to the same place" and by crossing many of these tracks you may define the place of that point. Greetings, Jaap ------- End of forwarded message ------- MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
