[MD] Quantum computing

[skutvik at online.no]

Ham  

17 Feb. you wrote:

> I don't now how you could possibly compare me with Nietzche's paragon
> of nihilism, but perhaps it is my rejection of the MoQ levels that has
> earned me this name.  By the way, I've always supported your cause,
> Bo, even though I don't see that positing an SO Level solves anything.

I just can't resist a little witticism now and then, but thanks for the 
support. With supporters like you who needs adversaries. 
Another witticism ;-)

> If intellect, in the Pirsigian sense, has nothing to do with mind, why
> not toss it and use my term "awareness"?  (You can decide whether
> rocks and atoms are aware or not.)  

"In the Pirsigean sense" intellect IS mind,  that's the problem.  
Regarding rocks and atoms, it's plain silly to speak about 
consciousness in the "subject-detached from-the-world" sense, 
(experience at the intellectual level) Your "awareness" may be 
more like what in ZMM is called "pre-intellectual awareness" 
which is value-perception at all levels below intellect in the MOQ. 
But Pirsig regrettably never undertook a ZMM-LILA 
harmonisation.   

> And let's stop the practice of
> talking about value as "inorganic" or "organic".  Then you can say:
> Awareness is the Value of the S/O divide.  (Divided consciousness and
> intellection follow the S/O split.)  If you can accept this
> epistemology, regardless of how you choose to parse the levels, you
> and I can be on the same page ontologically.

I don't question the basics of the MOQ so don't expect an end to 
"the practice of talking about the 4 static value levels".   

> Of course, I look for metaphysical reasons that go beyond this.  For
> example, instead of explaining existence as a consequence of static
> and dynamic forces splitting (or whatever), I view it as the negation
> of an undivided primary source, negation being a constant principle of
> the source. 

"Negation of an undivided primary source" is the levels' 
relationship with DQ. And as soon as the first static "negation" 
was established its drift toward instability began, leading to the 
next negation.    

> Recently I've been considering this principle as
> "reciprocal".  That is, if negation differentiates subject from object

The "negation" sequence came to an end (climax) with the 
subject/object divide, it's drift toward instability resulted in the 
weird Relativity and Quantum Mech. conclusions that disturbed 
this young super.intellect so much that it put him on his Quality 
Quest.  

> so that Value can be realized, then would not the realization of Value
> tend to reverse the affects of negation and annul the division?  If
> so, then the cycle of existence could be said to come full circle by
> restoring the unity of the source.

And the MOQ definitely reverses/annuls intellect's (in its SOM 
role) damage by making it its own 4th level. And "coming "full 
circle"? Yes, I can't see anything beyond the MOQ but here one 
may speak about "Mind at the end of it's Tether" (H.G.Wells). 

> Tell me what you think of this concept, and how you feel it might fit
> in with the MoQ -- or with Slutvik's SOLAQI -- (or neither.)

You have high opinions of my ability to evaluate your ideas, but 
as shown there are similarities. Still I don't know what it is you 
object to, if "awareness" is your groundstuff you must understand 
how like it is the said "value perception" awareness. I think you 
are a (how do you say it in English?) "cupboard MOQ-ist" 

IMO

Bo