[MD] Quantum computing

[Ham Priday]

Bo --

[Ham, previously]:
> I've always supported your cause, even though I
> don't see that positing an SO Level solves anything.

[Bo]:
> 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".

Then you're hoisted by your own petard.  I understood your premise to be
that the intellectual level denies conscious awareness its autonomy.  If
conscious awareness is to have any meaning it must be proprietary and
independent of the primary source.  By lumping it together with intellect
and intelligence in the MoQ collective sense, awareness loses its value as
an individual perspective.  The universe is not "aware"; it is only a
construct of intellectual awareness which is proprietary to the individual.

[Ham]:
> 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.)

[Bo]:
> "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.

Yes, my awareness is pre-intellectual; but this doesn't mean that it's
"lower" or "higher" than intellect.  It's as essential to consciousness as
intellect and experience.  These are human functions, Bo, not extracorporeal
values; they define the individual in a way that organic beingness never
can, and they define the physical world as well..

[Bo]:
> "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.

This makes no sense to me.  You are describing negation as of it were a
mathematical or logical function rather than an ontogeny.   For me negation
is the actualization of nothingness which creates the appearance of physical
reality as a  subject/object dichotomy.  There is no way to escape this
reality while we exist in it.  Positing arbitrary levels won't do it, any
more than belief in a supreme being or a spiritual heaven.

> 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.

This concern that Pirsig and his acolytes have about the "instability" of a
material universe based on quantum theories belies their central tenet that
experience creates the world.  If experience is primary to physical reality,
it seems senseless to worry that the world will fall apart because a few
physicists are unable to plot certain microcosmic events.

[Ham]:
> 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.

[Bo]:
> 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).
>
> 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"

Essence is the groundstuff, not awareness.  But awareness is what realizes
Value in existence, and Value is the individual's link to Essence.

IMO

--Ham