[MD] irony and socrates

Wed Oct 14 23:29:21 PDT 2009

Ron, Marsha,

I will have to dig out the actual Heisenberg words, if you're going to quote me.
"Physical Principles of Quantum Theory" is readable for about two and
a half introductory and scene-setting chapters, after that (despite
relegating the serious maths to an appendix) the text is full of maths
and practically impenetrable.

Up to date writing on QM ?
Shimon Malin's "Nature Loves to Hide" was recommended by David Morey -
it's more recent than Gribben's Kittens, good but very similar
material. Gribben has written more recent stuff too.

I have mixed views about "newer" QM stuff, the reason I am going back
to "Copenhagen" to understand where it went wrong. Physicists (the
kind behind the LHC) don't seem to suffer from that problem (of
thinking anything's wrong), and I've not seen current popular science
writers rocking that (gravy) boat. Writers who see problems tend to be
lone-voices being ignored by their peers, not the ones who get
lucrative publishing deals. Peter Rowlands and Rick Ryals and Lere
Shakunle, to name a few.

You know, as a Pirsigian, cranks hanging around the public library,
who believe they've solved the problem of life, the universe and
everything. We'll probably have to wait 80 years for their histories
to be written. Remember science is 20/20 hindsight ?

Regards
Ian

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:37 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> I loved 'Schrodinger's Kittens', but realized that it is almost 15 years
> old, and wonder if you know of something a little more up to date?  So much
> can have happened in the decade and a half.  I understand they will be
> trying to bring the LCH online in November, but it will take a while to get
> it to full-power.  I'm soooo curious.
>
>
> Marsha
>
> p.s.  Is Heisenberg's book readable for the non-scientist?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ian Glendinning
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 9:24 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] irony and socrates
>
> You bet Marsha.
> Its why I'm still bemused that Bo sees SOMist Intellect as the pinnacle of
> MoQ.
>
> (As an aside - since reading Lindley, I'm re-reading Heisenberg's
> "Physical Principles of QM".
> Although he is characterized in the Copenhagen histories as
> unconcerned with metaphysical questions, "unconcerned" does not really
> do his position justice. In fact he is actually very explicit that in
> describing QM, no-one should think he is saying anything at all about
> reality - that's something completely different.)
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:36 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>> Maybe this is where Buddhism can be useful.  If self and objects are not
>> seen as inherently existing, maybe there would not be such a rush to grasp
>> the illusory, and therefore less anxiety, less suffering and more quality
>> decisions.
>>
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
>> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ian
> Glendinning
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 6:16 AM
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Subject: Re: [MD] irony and socrates
>>
>> Hi Bo, leave off the insults I asked several simple open questions,
>> which you ignored.
>> You see your intelocutors as ensnared in GOF-Intellect's tentacles. I
>> just see you in that bind.
>>
>> The Pirsig quotes are recognized and clear ... even the one you double
>> quote / highlight thus :
>> "It is the intellectual framework with which one deals with the data
>> that is at fault. The fault is within subject-object metaphysics
>> itself."
>>
>> We know this. It's the starting point for a discussion. It tell us the
>> problem clearly enough, but it doesn't tell us any solution.
>> ie That GOF SOMist kind of intellect framework is at fault; what does
>> a better / MOQish "intellect" look like ?
>> You don't even have to call it intellect if you want to reserve that
>> term for the GOF mental / SOMist kind.
>>
>> (Clearly it is more than the mental - how often do we have to agree that
> ?)
>> Regards
>> Ian
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:55 PM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
>>> For Ron
>>>
>>> 12 Oct.
>>>
>>> Ian to Bo:
>>>> > Some hope : You suggested. "Every single intellectual pattern is about
>>>> > debunking the social [PoV's]." Nice idea. A hierarchical relationship
>> of
>>>> > Intellect over Social - which is where we started. But, so many
>>>> > questions. Are all social PoV's in need of debunking ? Are all
>>>> > intellectual PoV's free of social prejudices ? How can we tell a good
> /
>>>> > intellectual PoV from an inferior / social PoV ? (How do we do any of
>>>> > that if intellect = SOM ?)
>>>
>>> Ron:
>>>> Great questions Ian, How IS any of that done if intellect equals SOM.
>>>> SOM equalling intellect is already the universaly agreed apon
>>>> assumption.
>>>
>>> Yes I know that you all regard SOM as ONE intellectual pattern, but
>>> the point is that for the MOQ to make sense its intellectual level has to
>>> be SOM. Regrettably I don't take notes of all indications of this
>>> interpretation in Pirsig's writings, but the latest was
>>>
>>>    Pirsig in LILA: "There is the materialist school that says reality
>>>    is all matter, which creates mind. There is the idealist school
>>>    that says it is all mind, which creates matter [....]  It is the
>>>    intellectual framework with which one deals with the data that
>>>    is at fault. The fault is within subject-object metaphysics itself.
>>>
>>> "It is the intellectual framework with which one deals with the data that
>>> is at fault. The fault is within subject-object metaphysics itself.
>>>
>>> I can of course not force you don't see the obvious, intellect's
> tentacles
>>> are tough and the toughest one is the term "intellect" that indicates
>>> mental and - consequently - intellectual patterns as ideas or thoughts -
>>> of which the MOQ is one - but as said: The subject/object distinction
>>> (in all its forms) is abolished, "intellectual patterns" aren't mental
>>> patterns but the value of the MENTAL/CORPOREAL distinction.
>>>
>>> But now I understand that you neither care about Pirsig's writings nor
>>> my interpretations of these writings. So good-bye to you.
>>>
>>> Bodvar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>