Focusers, Based upon the SODV paper, i am presenting here a brief picture of the MOQ as i see it. >The subject was 'Electrons and Photons.' To leave no doubt that >it was directed to the main question, the theme embroiling >all of physics, discussion was centered around the renunciation >of certainty implied in the new methods [of physics] ... Bohr >was invited to give the conference a report on the epistemological >problems confronting quantum physics. >Bohr was saying that the particles that constitute our material >universe can only be described in terms of statistical probability >and never in terms of absolute certainty. He regarded the development >of the quantum revolution as in a certain sense "complete." >Quantum theory need no longer await some enlightening revelation >that would put everything right from a classical point of view. Yes, Bohr was convinced that he was on to something of considerable epistemological and metaphysical importance that had much wider implications than just a philosophical interpretation of the equations. But the problem was nobody was really interested, apperently because scientists and philosophers (real?) had long ago abandoned the primitive man's understanding that there was a hidden element to nature that could not be detected by the senses and was not directly observable in the physical universe. But here was a clear indication, if not proof, that it was not nature that was absurd but the philosophers of science that had lost touch with reality. They had kept digging and digging into this tunnel of the physical aspect of reality, trying to reduce all phenomena into a cause-effect relationship, best described by mathematical equations, and had at last come at a crucial juncture where there was clear cut proof that nature and realty CANNOT be put into a deterministic relationship, at best probablistic only for the physical aspect. At the end of this tunnel that was dug was a writing on the wall that no one bothered to read : THE SMARTER YOU GET ABOUT ONE ASPECT OF REALITY, THE DUMBER YOU GET ABOUT ITS COUNTER ASPECT. But they failed to read this, for there was no "light" at the end of this tunnel , only a BLACK HOLE where all matter,light and also science eventually ends up. >Einstein wasn't having any of it. Quantum theory was not complete, >he said. The universe is not ultimately a set of statistics. It was >at one of those meetings that Einstein asked his famous question, >"Do you really believe God resorts to dice playing?" >"I remember discussions with Bohr which went through many hours >till very late at night and ended almost in despair, and when at >the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighboring >park I repeated to myself again and again the question: "Can nature >possibly be as absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?" >(Heisenberg 42) Now if they had followed this lead, they should have realised that nature was indirectly telling them that she was deliberately hiding a crucial element (DQ) to it that must remain hidden from direct prodding and probing by its own creatures. The reason is clear : The physical aspect of nature is open to use and abuse but the non-physical aspect(DQ) cannot become open to abuse. Nature protects her kernel or core of real value from being abused or corrupted quite effectively. I'm not condemming science and scientists here, i'm only pointing out that most of scientific discoveries and technological innovations have been abused far more that used. And scientists have been quick to take credit for the uses but have never taken responsibility for the abuses, blaming everything on their political masters. >At another point Heisenberg said, "When you speak about the model, >you mean something which can only be described by means of classical >physics. As soon as you go away from classical physics, then, in a >strict sense you don' t even know what a model could possibly mean >because then the words haven't got any meaning any more. Now this >was a dilemma.... Bohr tried to keep the picture while at the same >time omitting classical mechanics. He tried to keep the words and >the pictures without keeping the meanings of the words of the >pictures. Both things are possible in such a situation because >your words don't really tackle the things any more. You can't >get hold of the things by means of your words,so what shall you do?.. >Bohr's escape would be into the philosophy of things."(qtd in Folse111) ... >When similarities of this sort exist, they can either be an odd >coincidence or they can be evidence that both systems of thought >are describing something that is true independently of either thinker. Here they were on the fringe of the undefinable (DQ) aspect of nature and Bohr sensed that, i guess, but lacked the experience, intellect and support from his fellow scientists, intellectuals and philosophers to develop his ideas and drive into a metaphysics.In any case his efforts were doomed for failure because by then everybody in the western culture only believed that reality was totally contained and expressed in matter (physical universe) and that there was no non-physical element to reality. The study of Physics itself was and is still believed to be the ultimate description and model of reality. The operating assumption was, and still is, that that which cannot be defined or 'objectified', or observable in a controlled experiment that can be consistently verified by learned scientists, does not exist and is therefore not real or part of Reality but only a figment of somebody's imagination. This is taught almost right from the school level all over the world now. Science and maths has for all practical purposes become the new religion without anyone even daring to question the fundamental assumption, except for a handful of people like Pirsig. And people of other cultures dont count anyway. Also significant was the disinterest shown by scientists in W J Sidis's work 'The Animate and the Inanimate'in which Sidis convincingly argues that the fact that life exists is a clear example of the reversal of the second law of thermodynamics, and hence life forms have an element of the "animate" which is independent of all "laws of science". >In 1913 Niels Bohr, who had developed the most widely accepted >picture of the atom at that time, saw that a description of the >way these quanta behaved also fitted the behavior of the electron >in the atom. >With this new picture of the universe came a number of paradoxes: >the disappearance of space-time locality, the abandonment of causality, >and the contradictory appearance of atomic matter as both particles and >waves. Again, Bohr's complimentarity was mostly shunned whereas all he was saying was that there can be and are several complimentary truths to a given phenomena and further that these truths are a function not only of the observed phenomena but also that these truths and their interpretation were ALSO functions of the observer. This means that phenomena that are being observed are not totally independent of the observer, but the observer is very much a participant in the phenomena itself, and thus affects the truth of this phenomena. >The most striking similarity between the Metaphysics of Quality >and Complementarity is that this Quality event corresponds to what >Bohr means by "observation." When the Copenhagen Interpretation "holds >that the unmeasured atom is not real, that its attributes are created >or realized in the act of measurement," (Herbert xiii) >it is saying something very close to the Metaphysics of Quality. >The observation creates the reality. But it is erroneous to conclude from this that if a rock is being observed by an observer then prior to it being observed it didn't exist. Utmost one can say that prior to it being observed, it didn't exist in the realm of the perception of the observer. All this means is that THE ACT OF OBSERVATION OR INTERACTION CAN SAID TO BE THE PHENOMENA ITSELF. It can even be concluded from this that IN ONGOING REALITY there are only phenomena that are happening, no observer and no observed as such, and there fore no subject or object. But this conclusion, although has epistemological value, has very little pragmatic value. Again it will be erroneous to conclude that the observer creates the observed, although there is an element of truth in that too. The point is that the observer prior to the observation, has already a pre-concieved, and pre-programmed notion of the world, acquired from society and culture, and this pre-conception itself defines the observation and thus the phenomena itself. All this means that for a creative observation, the observer must BE ABLE TO SUSPEND at least temporarily ALL prior conceptions, judgements, evaluations,etc that is, all operating static patterns must come to a halt. (stopping or emptying one's mind so to speak) This by itself is one of the most difficult of tasks to accomplish, and many practices like zen strive for attaining this state. And actually what follows from there then can be a creative observation or creative synthesis experience, and in the realm of this experience even "observed objects" like a rock becomes "subject" to the percepton of the observer. This state can also be artificially induced by hallucenogenic drugs but is only a short cut procedure fraught with risks, because it usually does not involve the will or clear purpose of the individual. Furthermore, unless this exercise is under the supervision of a master of such practices, the results are not likely to be positive, and one may even come to grevious harm instead. Such "quick fix" spirituality has hardly benefited anyone, and only given a bad name to the natural or genuine users of these practices. Metaphysics Of Quality : Although most of what Pirsig writes in SODV about MOQ is simple and by and large accurate, but in my view does not expand on anything much about picturising Dynamic Quality, and rather confuses when he says that DQ is the chain of Quality events going on an on, whereas Quality is also stated as an event. So we have DQ as well as Q both as events. As i picture it, it should have been: DQ is the force behind the chain of Quality events going on and on. And in figure 4 : >The blocks are organized in the order of evolution, with each higher >block more recent and more Dynamic than the lower ones. Yes, higher order of evolution in terms of theology,science,mathematics, and higher philosophy (!!??) but in Reality lower and lower in terms of morals. More and more Dynamic but with lesser and lesser manifest Dynamic Quality if DQ is understood here as the moral force. >At birth this sense of value is extremely Dynamic but as the infant grows >up this sense of value becomes more and more influenced by accumulated >static patterns. In the past this biological sense of value has been called >the "subjective" because there values cannot be located in an external >physical object. But quantum theory has destroyed the idea that only >properties located in external physical objects have reality. Yes here the picture is fairly accurate but the point most people miss is that the same can be said about the cycle of life's evolution and destruction on a planet. >The Metaphysics of Quality agrees with scientific realism that these >inorganic patterns are completely real, and there is no reason that box >shouldn't be there, but it says that this reality is ulimately a deduction >made in the first months of an infant's life and supported by the culture >in which the infant grows up. Yes again, but instead of "supported" it should have been "hammered in". >However if you study the world you will observe that the higher patterns >often oppose the lower ones. Again it should have been " However if you study the world carefully, you just might observe (depending upon DQ) that the higher patterns are actually not in charge but lower patterns like biological values that rule the roost. And consequently Higher life forms not only oppose but also destroy the lower life forms, retaining, controlling and enslaving only those on whom their own survival and comfort depends. The rest have museum or zoological value." >However, the Metaphysics of Quality observe that these two kinds of values >are lower on the evolutionary ladder than the intellectual pattern of >science. Science rejects them to set free its own higher intellectual >pattern. The Metaphysics of Quality calls this a correct moral judgment >by science. However science never rejects the value of truth. It never >rejects the value of experiment. It never rejects the value of mathematical >precision. Most important, it never rejects Dynamic Quality. The greatest >strength of the scientific method is that it always allows new experiences, >new ideas and a new evaluation of what it learns. Instead of being Mr Nice he should have called a spade - a spade, but this was a science conference and so... To me at least it is very clear that scientists and intellectuals today are very much subservient to society and politics on a gross level and very much driven and motivated by their own biological values. Truth for scientists means something that can be repeatedly tested for consistency under controlled conditions of their chosen parameters and procedures. Rest all is hookey-pookey or superstition. >When Bohr says we are suspended in language I think he means you cannot >get rid of the social contexts either. Yes right on the dot. Science and its applications all are subject to the social and cultural contexts. >It says that to say "A causes B" can be better said as "B values >precondition A."The term "cause" implies an absolute certainty that >quantum theory says does not exist. The term cause is ill defined and unless the context is clear in an example, we can never know what we are talking about. >"unmeasured phenomenal object" is now called the "The Conceptually Unknown" >and what is called "Dynamic Quality" is also called "The Conceptually >Unknown." Here he has equated the conceptually unknown with DQ, which is not completely accurate in my understanding. The conceptually unknown is in my understanding "nothingness" or "infinity" or "the void" or "pure randomness" from which something (a conception) is created by a being. That is the meaning of "creativity" that is, to bring into existence from nothing. DQ is a catalyst and sets the limits for this creativity in the human context as i understand it. DQ itself is concieveable in a limited manner with the understanding that this conception cannot be a fixed or accurate, always subject to modification. Further more this conception and its implications cannot as a rule be agreed upon, or if is agreed upon in a special condition then this must neccessarily be temporary. >Northrop's name for Dynamic Quality is "the undifferentiated aesthetic >continuum." By "continuum" he means that it goes on and on forever. >By "undifferentiated" he means that it is without conceptual distinctions. >And by "aesthetic" he means that it has quality. Aesthetic continuum is accurate but if undifferentiated ie without conceptual distinctions then there is no point in attempting to picturising it even for personal purposes.From my understanding, DQ has properties of both continuity as well as the discrete, ie it has a quantum nature, but again this is my interpretation, there are no fixed conceptions here. >As Bohr might have loved to observe, science and art are just two different >complementary ways of looking at the same thing. Sadly, science has ended up being more destructive than constructive, and even more sadly it has got into the head of man to the point where nothing else is considered real.Fortunately we cant say the same for art. Is a constructive fusion possible ? I would think so. Science is based upon Reason. Art is based upon intuition. These are counterprocesses. Sadly they have ended up inhibiting rather than complimenting each other.Intellect should be point,the fulcrum on which the two are balanced. If at all on any planet intellegent life crosses the line of self-destruction it would have to be on the basis of this balance. Perhaps life is always ment for self- destruction, but somehow i dont believe so. However small the probability there may be, i feel it is worth fighting for. Without the belief of this possibility, an inquiry into morals is meaningless. THE ART OF RATIONALITY IS TO BALANCE BELIEF AND COUNTERBELIEF. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
