[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: craigerb at comcast.net
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Platt's Individual Level
>Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 06:49:44 +0000
>
>[Dan]
> > The mistaken view where the
> > objects of perception have an inherent existence separate and apart from 
>the
> > perceiver
>
>This seems misleading.  Pirsig's view is clearer:  what we perceive as an 
>object, exists in the >Conceptually Unknown (the SODV phrase for DQ) 
>independent of & prior to our perception of >that object.

Hi Craig

Thank you for writing. It wasn't my intent to mislead and of course Robert 
Pirsig is more clear. However, I think if you investigate the matter, the 
SODV paper was written with an eye towards addressing an audience unfamiliar 
with the MOQ... a SOM audience, so to speak. Also, if you've read the paper 
you know Mr. Pirsig states that Bohr would more than likely disagree with 
the phrase "Conceptual Unknown" to represent where the measurement comes 
from. Bohr consistently refused to speculate on that matter. The context 
Bohr was using differed from the context of the MOQ. And there's this from 
LILA'S CHILD:

This is difficult to untangle. Bohr’s “observation” and the
MOQ’s “quality event” are the same, but the contexts are
different. The difference is rooted in the historic chickenand-
egg controversy over whether matter came first and
produces ideas, or ideas come first and produce what we
know as matter. The MOQ says that Quality comes first,
which produces ideas, which produce what we know as
matter. The scientific community that has produced
Complementarity, almost invariably presumes that matter
comes first and produces ideas. However, as if to further
the confusion, the MOQ says that the idea that matter
comes first is a high quality idea! I think Bohr would say
that philosophic idealism (i.e. ideas before matter) is a
viable philosophy since complementarity allows multiple
contradictory views to coexist." (Robert Pirsig)

Dan comments:

So Craig... when you say "what we perceive as an object, exists in the 
Conceptually Unknown (the SODV phrase for DQ) independent of & prior to our 
perception of that object" I think you're misreading what Robert Pirsig and 
Neils Bohr are saying. The MOQ does not say objects exist independently of 
us, in Dynamic Quality, just waiting for us to notice. Bohr refused to 
answer that question and the MOQ states that Quality comes first, then 
ideas, then matter. If (in fact) what we perceive as objects existed prior 
to the idea of the objects then there would be no possibility of multiple 
contradictory viewpoints coexisting.

Thank you for your comments,

Dan