[MD] The Menu/Reality issue

[Ham Priday]

Krimel --


> You leave me wondering which meaning of phenomena
> you intend. In physics it means events in the external world.
> In philosophy it refers to purely mental events. Which do
> you mean or is the confusion intentional? You say that
> '"patterns" are phenomena,' I have no idea what that is
> supposed to mean.

A phenomenon is an observable fact or event, "an object known through the 
senses rather than by thought or nonsensual intuition."  In the macro world 
of direct experience, objects and events have quantitative attributes that 
are measurable in units of size, mass, energy, and velocity.  They are also 
exhibit some degree of predictability, in relation to other events, based on 
the laws of cause-and-effect.  Science continues to document objective 
knowledge about physical reality, its components, dynamics, and properties, 
the sum total of which constitutes our universal understanding of existence.

Recent research into quantum physics poses some problems that are addressed 
in Pirsig's SODV paper.  They concern the inability to measure all 
parameters of quantum events, the apparent affect of the observer on the 
events, and the "split-screen" effect whereby quanta entities appear to 
behave as both particles and wave-bundles simultaneously.

For a complete discussion of the 'Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum 
Mechanics', check out the Stanford Encyclopedia website at 
http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/qm-copenhagen/:  Following is a 
relevant excerpt.

"In order to separate the object from the subject itself, the experiential 
subject must be able to distinguish between the form and the content of his 
or her experiences. This is possible only if the subject uses causal and 
spatial-temporal concepts for describing the sensorial content, placing 
phenomena in causal connection in space and time, since it is the causal 
space-time description of our perceptions that constitutes the criterion of 
reality for them.  Bohr therefore believed that what gives us the 
possibility of talking about an object and an objectively existing reality 
is the application of those necessary concepts, and that the physical 
equivalents of 'space,' 'time,' 'causation,' and 'continuity' were the 
concepts 'position,' 'time,' 'momentum,' and 'energy,' which he referred to 
as the classical concepts."

> How does one "objectivize" anything?

This is an epistemological question which Pirsig has not addressed, allowing 
his readers to conclude that objects are either a cosmic subset of Quality 
or "static patterns" derived from an "intellectual level".  I maintain that 
Existence is fundamentally a Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy created by the 
negation of Difference or Nothingness.  In brief, Sensibility actualizes the 
subjective (individuated) self as value-awareness, and Otherness becomes its 
value object.  Because primary value-sensibility is undifferentiated and 
pre-intellectual, it must be made relational (as being-aware) to the 
cognizant organism.  Starting with the brain and sensory system, the 
subjective self becomes aware by integrating Value as differentiated 
phemenona (objects) arranged in space and interacting in time.  The 
"substance" of phenomena is perceived as "Being", but its essence is Value 
that is incrementally restored to the negated self in the process of 
experience.

This is the best I can do by way of explanation in a single post, but it 
should give you a general idea of how I view objectivization.

Any other questions, Krimel?

Essentially yours,
Ham