[MD] Ole Pigweed

[skutvik at online.no]

Magnus and MD

On 2 Apr. you  wrote:

Me earlier
> > Pirsig's point with a Q-physics seems to have been to explain the
> > vagaries of Quantum Physics, but he makes it sound as if only
> > "particles" are inorganic patterns, but forces and fields - even
> > causation - are inorganic patterns as well, thus a Q-physics sheds
> > no explanatory light on things. 
 
Magnus:
> Wrong! See my last post about MoQ and the sciences.

See my response to that.
 
> First you say I misunderstood, but now you seem to confirm my
> statement that science is your only view to reality.

How the h... can you utter this nonsense? Listen. The MOQ (in 
my opinion) makes SOM and its sciences its own intellectual 
level and by this metaphysical inside-out turn the MOQ pulls the 
rug from under the old order where physics - not metaphysics - 
represented reality.   

Do you understand? SOM's advantage was that of no-one 
knowing any SOM, they believed that it's premises were 
fundamental and that physics examined reality itself. Phaedrus' 
enormous feat was to expose the SOM and if Pirsig had followed 
up and made SOM the MOQ's 4th. level the MOQ could have 
thrown in its full weight, but Pirsig played straight into SOM's 
hand and now the MOQ is impotent.  

> When you say that "substance" is of the 4th level, do you mean that
> the stone outside my window is intellectual patterns??? Because that's
> how it comes through to me. I can of course agree that the *idea* of a
> substance based reality is an intellectual pattern, but you seem to
> (as usual) mix up the map and the reality.

When examined by a scientist, be it a geologist or a physicist or 
whoever, the stone is substance and a lot of useful information 
can be gleaned from this approach, it has given us modernity and 
I am not willing to drop that. However, when "examined" by the 
MOQ it is inorganic value and as we know much more can be 
gained from that. This has nothing to do with ideas in contrast to 
reality or confusing maps and terrain or any other any somish 
mumbo-jumbo.

> Another thing, first you say that a MoQ-look at physics is
> superfluous. Then you say the quantum weirdness made the physical
> world disappear into subjectivism, but was then saved by the MoQ. That
> isn't superfluous in my book??

I mean that a Q-version of the various scientific disciplines will 
only mess up their work. A physicist may well be a moqist, but in 
his work he will act the subject examining objects. If he is a 
particle physicist and he encounters quantum phenomena this will 
not cause articles in "Science American" about how reality fails to 
meet the substance criteria. Reality to him is no longer SOM but 
the MOQ and in it the inorganic level isn't (all of) reality: The 
DQ/SQ configuration is.    

> Would you mind listing a few inorganic patterns you recognize? You
> don't seem to recognize that there *is* a first level?

I DO recognize the static inorganic value as the first level, and 
everything you deem inorganic value I do too. 

Bo