[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Case]

"This is difficult to untangle. Bohrs observation and the MOQs quality
event are the same, but the contexts are different. The difference is
rooted in the historic chicken-and-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. 

[Case]
Pirsig says: (with my small quotes inserted) "Quality comes first, which
produces ideas, which produce 'what we know' as matter." 

While that is true in so far as it goes, I think complementarily presumes
that there exists: matter 'that we don't know'. As a physicist, Bohr's chief
concern was finding out more to say about this. 

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is.
Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

I don't think Bohr is saying that there is nothing to talk about only that
there is uncertainty about what to say. Whatever we say will be "about"
something that is independent of whatever we say about it; or whether we say
nothing. But I don't think he is saying that nature is the product of
chit-chat.

[Dan]
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.

[Case]
Complementarity is also denied if "what we perceive as objects did not exist
prior to the idea of the objects." But I don't think complementarity says
that mutually contradictory ideas must coexist. Only that sometimes it is
permissible and after all you never know what might happen.