[MD] The strong interpretation of the MOQ (SIM)

[X Acto]

Bodvar:
THE Ron.

Ron:
A Ron

Bodvar:
13 July you wrote to me:

> Somehow, someway, you have twisted yet another idea to mean what
> you want it to mean.

Yes, isn't it funny how many "ideas" fits the strong MOQ and how few 
fits the weak, at least I have yet to see any attempt at USING the MOQ 
from the weak faction.    

> Einstein and most of physics today refer to what you speak of strong
> and weak theories, as refering to strong and weak atomic attraction,
> strong and weak gravitational fields. Not strong and weak
> theories...why keep a weak theory if it's not as good as the strong
> one? 

I know about the weak and strong nuclear forces that along with 
electromagnetism and gravity makes up the 4 forces that governs the 
inorganic world. But there were the weak and strong interpretations of 
Quantum Theory. If Einstein himself called it "weak" I doubt, he was 
just dead sure that "God do not play dice" (his take of its scary 
implications) and - as mentioned - worked out the thought experiment 
that would once and for all settle the matter. His idea was that there 
were some hidden parameters that weren't taken into account. But in 
1983 ( believe) Alain Aspect managed to carry out the experiment and 
.... alas. There was an article in "Scientific American" which is thick 
with my multicolored under- and overlinings. 

Ron:
"god does not roll dice" was in response to Heisenburgs uncertainty
principle. It's a problem of measurement in Quantum explanations.
Thus "probabilty fields" as used in sub-atomic calculations.

Heisenburg forwarded a theory which accepts a certain amount of uncertainty
and ventures into the realm of probability in theory. Something Albert had 
problems
accepting. But the dynamic IS uncertain. I do not know of what experiment 
refutes
this, it would be nice to read it because it would undermine Quantum physics as 
it
is defined and understood.

Bodvar:
And - mark you - it was not a question of the strong = good and weak 
= bad only  that the strong defied common sense (SOM), and this 
bears an uncanny likeness to our quandary. 

Ron:
Not really, the strong, as you asserted above, is about certainty. Certainty
is about a common sense of understanding. Strong, it would imply, is a better
explanation. Which seems to contradict your statement of strong defying a
common understanding.


Bodvar:
 Arlo in the role of Einstein 
is justified in his conviction that the MOQ is "an expansion of 
rationality" i.e. that SOM is just one pattern of an intellectual level that 
has been from eternity. And I (as Bohr) point out that the Q-intellectual 
level came to be with the MOQ and is rationality itself. This is odd to 
say the least and I don't mind being called names, yet convinced that 
there is no MOQ except the strong MOQ.   

Ron:
Hold on here, Bohr has little to do with it and you are flip floping positions.
If MOQ is the competion of the free market of ideas,  it IS rationality,Then the 
defining 

assertion of SOLor SIM, that SOM IS the intellectual level, is rendered 
invalid.                 


Bodvar:
You have yet to answer "what makes your interpretation strong?". 

Ron:
First, by your own criteria of "strong" as a degree of certainty, my 
interpretation
accepts most if not all of Robert Maynard Pirsigs work and agrees with it.
It is consistent with a tradition of thought known as "perrenial" wisdom and 
agrees
with current theories in physics and science.
Second it asserts a value centered reality It directs intellect towards the 
support
of inorganic, organic and social patterns of value not "take off on a purpose of 
it's own".
It directs the attention to the now of experience, toward the understanding of 
relationships and meaning in our lives toward the competition and betterness in 
the free market of ideas not the rigid assertion of one particular system of 
thought.
The support of the idea of the good as the most general principle of being.
The idea that truth is a value not a seperate and distinct absolute.

Bodvar:
For instance the various SOM-induced paradoxes (platypuses) that 
Pirsig speaks about in LILA. His resolution is based on the weak 
interpretation, namely that inorganic + biology = objective/social + 
intellect = subjective. This is cumbersome and not even correct, a 
living thing is OF matter, but life isn't matter. While  the strong MOQ 
simply says that that the mind/matter distinction only exists on the 
intellectual level and so does all platypuses. It's no resolution but a 
DISSOLUTION. Excato the same way that Newtonian physics 
dissolved the Greek physics-induced paradoxes Get it? 

Ron:
No I do not, if the mind/matter distinction only exists on the intellectual 
level,
you are stating that it only exists in the mind, in other words, its subjective.
     

> Forget interpretation for the moment, what makes your idea better?

Bodvar:
Can you formulate some more specific points. I have told how the 
(strong) MOQ dissolves the mind/matter enigma, resolves the problem 
of evil, the present Muslim vs West conflict, but you just come back 
with the same question. OK, Ron, you stay away from accusations of 
delusion and of me as a nut-case and seem truly interested in the 
ramifications of the MOQ and for that I credit you.    

Ron:
You are not a nut case but you are highly inconsistent and often
contradictory in your explanations. I replied to the explanation of evil
with the charge of this explanation as the justification of evil as moraly 
superior.
Something you have yet to respond to. As far as the mind/matter "enigma",
see above as to my confusion over your explanation.























> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 12:47:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The strong interpretation of the MOQ (SIM)
> 
> Hi Arlo
> Horse has ordered me to engage in a conversation with you 
> so I better comply. 
> 
> 12 July you wrote:
> 
> > Why is the following such a seemingly alien concept for you, Platt
> > and Bo?
> 
> > (1) Bo's formulation for a metaphysics is a critical revision of
> > Pirsig's metaphysics.
> 
> It is NOT, but I guess that's taboo so I did not say it. 
> 
> > (2) Bo might say "A metaphysics of Quality that holds the 
> > intellectual level to SOM is better than A metaphysics of Quality
> > that considers SOM to be one on many intellectual patterns", instead
> > of "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual level to SOM".
> 
> Intellect = SOM originates in ZAMM and appears in about 50% of 
> LILA, only in Lila's Child did some peculiar "rejection" occur, but
> after my year-long dispute with Paul Turner - and his letter to
> Pirsig  in 2003  level - did Pirsig say that that level had bothered
> him too and then that it was no use to speak about Q-intellect before
> the Greeks AND GREEK IN A Q CONTEXT SPELLS SOM. Can't you see this
> Pirsigean "migration"? He starts a SOList in ZAMM, then 50/50% in
> LILA, then sort of a rejection in LC, but then a reversed flight back
> towards the strong interpretation. I must be allowed to defend my
> case. I'm accused of dishonesty but I really wonder who are the
> liars.        
> 
> > Why are you all so obsessively hung up on the word "THE", and what
> > value do you think it has?
> 
> If I am allowed - because the strong interpretation is no different
> MOQ, as little as the strong interpretation of Quantum Physics (QP)
> was a different QP. It truly  was different from Newtonian (SOM)
> Physics, but proved to be the only QP. And I don't doubt for a minute
> that the strong interpretation of the MOQ (SIM) will prove to be THE
> MOQ and your SOM-MOQ will be left in the dust.    
> 
> You know that Einstein was part of the weak interpretation of QP and
> he worked out an experiment to prove the strong faction wrong. So now
> as the leader of the "weaklings" it's up to you to work out the
> experiment that will prove the strong faction wrong. Sharpen your
> pencil!    
> 
> > Do you disagree with me that we use the phrase "THE metaphysics of
> > Quality" as a conventional way of referring specifically to Pirsig's
> > ideas, but that it would in fact be more accurate to say "Pirsig's
> > metaphysics"?
> 
> Not sure if I get the point here.
> 
> > Do you not see that obsessing on the "THE" objectifies the "MOQ"
> > into some "reality"... that even Pirsig can be "wrong" about? 
> 
> I very much see the MOQ as an expansion of reality, one that tucks the
> old SOM under its wings as a sub-set and thereby dissolves all
> SOM-induced paradoxes. Pirsig's "wrong" was that of returning from the
> wilderness - not going all the way - , but I understand his ordeal as
> a pioneer, he beat a track that we now can make a Sunday excursion
> along, I admire him boundlessly, but he was wounded in his lonely
> fight.      
> 
> > This makes no sense. Pirsig can't be wrong about his ideas, but his
> > ideas can be wrong. In the same way, Bo's ideas are not "THE MOQ",
> > they are his ideas. 
> 
> I give you one example of Pirsig being wrong about his own ideas:
> Remember the passage about the "old books of the Bible lacking
> intellectual content" (according to P. in the Turner letter)? It's
> more than clear that they lack SOM - the objective detached attitude
> is totally missing - there are just prophets returning with messages
> from Javeh, no scientific questioning about how burning thorn-bushes
> didn't become ashes or could speak ...etc.  OK, I wrote to Pirsig and
> pointed this out and he obviously felt cornered and started about an
> "old SOM" consisting in warning about crocodiles and "Javeh will
> reward you" promises. It was then I understood that Pirsig no longer
> "controlled" the  MOQ, it has started on a purpose of its own.    
> 
> > If we drop the word "THE", and instead simply talk about people's
> > ideas, do you not see how all this interpretive nonsense and need
> > for authoritative legitimacy would disappear?
> 
> I don't understand this need for this distinction. Pirsig will be the 
> towering lighthouse in MOQ's history. In a Quantum Physics comparison
> a combination of all the big names, yet in the same comparison the
> "weak vs strong" controversy occurred and only the latest technology
> could settle the score. I don't quite see what "experiment" can do
> that for the MOQ, but all attempts to apply the MOQ requires the
> intellect = SOM, ie. the SIM.  
> 
> > In other words, what do you think is wrong with saying "A
> > metaphysics of Quality that holds the intellectual level to SOM is
> > better than A metaphysics of Quality that considers SOM to be one on
> > many intellectual patterns"?
> 
> Because you are wrong about Pirsig unambiguously supporting the 
> "SOM just one Intellectual pattern". For instance about SOM denying
> morals (creating social havoc) ...etc. It's more than plain that it's
> the entire intellectual level that denies morals,  the "this pattern"
> was an escape when Pirsig discovered the conclusion, and this repeats
> itself: Pirsig said that the social level wasn't transcended in
> Homer's time which is a SOL affirmation, as was the Egyptians as no
> "intellectual culture".      
> 
> > Does that not sum up your position? Why is it more important for you
> > to say instead "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual
> > level to SOM"?
> 
> Because to anyone honest enough to admit it THE MOQ is the strong MOQ
> or it is a dead MOQ.  
> 
> 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/md/archives.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/md/archives.html
> 
> 


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/md/archives.html